Geocache Health Score

[cezanne]

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.

 

I meant something completely different. I neither intended to criticize what MarcoCR wrote nor was it my intention to create the impression that I do not believe that the health score helps the reviewers.

 

What I meant, I cannot but repeat again, is that the formulation of the mail that is sent to the cache owners and does not offer them an option like do nothing if no maintenance is required or check with your reviewer or write a note on the cache page and explain your situation is nothing that will be helpful for the reviewers or for any cachers out there. It does not improve cache quality, it does not make the job of reviewers easy. It just causes frustration and anger among some of the cache owners who have taken care of their caches properly for many years and would continue so without being irritated by strange mails. I suggest to either use the system only for the reviewers or if the emails are an integral component of the system (which is nothing I would have an issue with), then please change the formulation.

 

Why should it help the reviewers if cache owners decide to archive their perfectly fine caches because that's the only possible option among the two mentioned ones that applies?

 

Does it make sense if someone archives his well maintained cache if they had bad luck and had a recent visitor at their cache which is like me and logs a DNF for any kind of failure or a group of 10 people caching as a group who all log a DNF because the person who did the computation made a mistake?

 

I'm not against an initative for cache quality. I'm not against making the hard job easier for reviewers.

 

I cannot see however why an email that is formulated in the way it is should be helpful and why an improved formulation would not be much more helpful.

 

I think that all the participants in this thread have an interest into reasonably maintained caches. We just differ in approaches which make sense to reach this goal and what side effects should be taken into account.

 

While I understand that no system is perfect and that in order to reach certain goals, one might need to live with negative side effects I'm convinced that a changed formulation of the mail would not make a single cache worse and would not make the job of a single reviewer or lackey more difficult but it would help people a lot who take the messages they get very seriously and who would not consider to ignore something if this is not a mentioned option.

 

I also do not think that it would help the reviewers and those interested into well maintained caches if more angst is produced with respect to logging DNFs.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

Nice! That wall has already been archived.

[+niraD]

Thanks for injecting a few facts into the discussion.

 

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.

Are the volunteer reviewers the only ones who can provided feedback to Groundspeak? Is there any way for a CO who has received an erroneous "visit it or archive it" email to provide feedback to Groundspeak?

 

And if all feedback does have to go through the volunteer reviewers, then what would be the best way for a CO who has received an erroneous "visit it or archive it" email to provide that feedback to a volunteer reviewer?

 

And can providing such feedback be mentioned as an option in the "visit it or archive it" email?

[+thebruce0]

....I would not say that I know less about cache ownership than do....

Let me reiterate and focus bluntly on my point for you: Knowledge 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".

That is all. That's it. Not an insult. Not one CO being in any way "better" than another. Simply, and strictly, knowledge that as a CO the email can be ignored. A CO who does not know this knows less than one who does.

 

[+thebruce0]

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.

Then ignore the email.

Now you know.

 

Or better yet: Contact a local reviewer, and inform them of the concern with the algorithm so they can propose an adjustment. All without fear of consequence to your cache. If indeed is has no problem.

Edited March 2, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

....I would not say that I know less about cache ownership than do....

Let me reiterate and focus bluntly on my point for you: Knowledge 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".

That is all. That's it. Not an insult. Not one CO being in any way "better" than another. Simply, and strictly, knowledge that as a CO the email can be ignored. A CO who does not know this knows less than one who does.

 

To me it still sounds like arguing that one should pass a sign which says that access is prohibited if one knows that nothing happens and noone really cares if one is passing through silently.

 

It appears extremely unfortunate to me to argue along the lines that some things can be ignored when we discuss a topic like this one. It somehow invites people to decide which of the requests of GS they can ignore and do not need to take care of at all.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+barefootjeff]

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.

The "far higher standards the algorithm requires" include the expectation that it not get DNFs, or that the people attempting it not log DNFs if they can't find it for reasons that have nothing to do with cache health, and also the expectation that it be found often. It seems heavily weighted against high D/T caches.

[+thebruce0]

....I would not say that I know less about cache ownership than do....

Let me reiterate and focus bluntly on my point for you: Knowledge 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".

That is all. That's it. Not an insult. Not one CO being in any way "better" than another. Simply, and strictly, knowledge that as a CO the email can be ignored. A CO who does not know this knows less than one who does.

 

To me it still sounds like arguing that one can pass a sign which says that access is prohibited if one knows that nothing happens and noone really cares if one is passing through silently.

 

It appears extremely unfortunate to me to argue along the lines that some things can be ignored when we discuss a topic like this one. It somehow invites people to decide which of the requests of GS they can ignore and do not need to take care of at all.

That's what this email is. It's a passive notification, not a required call to action. So yes, it can be ignored. Should it be ignored? No. Can it? Yes. Are there instances where the email is inaccurate? Yes. So acting as though this email is causing the sky to fall doesn't help.

 

If access is prohibited, chances are it's on a fence that physically denies "passing" the sign. Even so, if you find a sign that says access is prohibited, then a knowledgeable person would know that it's illegal to trespass on private property, thus there is a very real punishment by passing the sign.

There is no punishment for ignoring the notification email.

 

More appropriately, it's like a "Clean up your dog's mess" sign in a park. If I don't have a dog, the sign is irrelevant to me. If I have a dog, I could choose to ignore the sign, but it's likely at some point someone will take notice, and then I have to deal with human judgement. If I have a dog and I already clean up after him, then the sign while not irrelevant doesn't pose me any repercussive threat for ignoring it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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

 

It could, but would not necessarily mean there is an issue with the cache. 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.

 

I admit, DNFs are tricky. In this case I'd have to believe that the reviewer would take into consideration that the cache would need to be initially found before any of the dnfs were to be taken into consideration.

 

That would not stop the automated algorithm from sending false positive an lowering the health score. It would only mean that the reviewer wouldn't act on it. The CO would still get the nags. Multiple DNFs before a cache isn't found wouldn't necessarily mean that there isn't a problem with the cache either. Sometimes new COs haven't learned that they're supposed to have the cache in place before it's submitted for publication and occasionally someone will fat finger coordinates when entering them or in some way post coordinates that are not very accurate. At the end of the day, the difficulty rating would be a very important part of the algorithm.

[cezanne]

Should it be ignored? No. Can it? Yes. Are there instances where the email is inaccurate? Yes. So acting as though this email is causing the sky to fall doesn't help.

 

If it should not be ignored, then in many cases archival (by the cache owner) is the only option.

It certainly cannot be avoided that the algorithm is inaccurate at times. It does not make sense however to formulate the e-mail in a way that does not mention all options that are ok for Groundspeak.

 

It's like either "eat the salad or leave the event" while they also would accept people not eating the salad if they explained that they are not allowed to eat salad out of medical reasons.

[+thebruce0]

Should it be ignored? No. Can it? Yes. Are there instances where the email is inaccurate? Yes. So acting as though this email is causing the sky to fall doesn't help.

 

If it should not be ignored, then in many cases archival (by the cache owner) is the only option.

No. Come on.

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

If the cache has a problem, then it should not be ignored.

Deal with the problem, as a responsible CO. Or wait until the problem is raised with a reviewer who will then deal with your situation appropriately (giving them the benefiti of the doubt as responsible fair reviewers).

 

It does not make sense however to formulate the e-mail in a way that does not mention all options that are ok for Groundspeak.

Of course it doesn't. Why would they not provide the next best course of action when informing you that there may be a problem with your cache?!

 

It's like either "eat the salad or leave the event" while they also would accept people not eating the salad if they explained that they are not allowed to eat salad out of medical reasons.

No, it's not, because the next step to not taking one of the options is not a bouncer kicking you out of the room! This email has zero ultimatums. It's absolutely nothing like "eat the salad or leave the event".

Edited March 2, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

No, it's not, because the next step to not taking one of the options is not a bouncer kicking you out of the room! This email has zero ultimatums. It's absolutely nothing like "eat the salad or leave the event".

 

I give up. It was meant as an example demonstrating the logic and not to say that the e-mail of GS is like kicking someone out of the room.

 

So what about the example "in order to be a nice guy take the red ball or the blue ball" while there is the hidden option to take the yellow ball and still to be considered as nice guy.

[+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

 

It could, but would not necessarily mean there is an issue with the cache. 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.

 

I admit, DNFs are tricky. In this case I'd have to believe that the reviewer would take into consideration that the cache would need to be initially found before any of the dnfs were to be taken into consideration.

 

That would not stop the automated algorithm from sending false positive an lowering the health score. It would only mean that the reviewer wouldn't act on it. The CO would still get the nags. Multiple DNFs before a cache isn't found wouldn't necessarily mean that there isn't a problem with the cache either. Sometimes new COs haven't learned that they're supposed to have the cache in place before it's submitted for publication and occasionally someone will fat finger coordinates when entering them or in some way post coordinates that are not very accurate. At the end of the day, the difficulty rating would be a very important part of the algorithm.

 

I agree with all. That's why the human element (reviewer) is still a very important part of this whole thing.

[+justintim1999]

No, it's not, because the next step to not taking one of the options is not a bouncer kicking you out of the room! This email has zero ultimatums. It's absolutely nothing like "eat the salad or leave the event".

 

I give up. It was meant as an example demonstrating the logic and not to say that the e-mail of GS is like kicking someone out of the room.

 

So what about the example "in order to be a nice guy take the red ball or the blue ball" while there is the hidden option to take the yellow ball and still to be considered as nice guy.

 

Having seen the matrix I guess you'd have no choice but to take the red ball....or do you?

[+thebruce0]

So what about the example "in order to be a nice guy take the red ball or the blue ball" while there is the hidden option to take the yellow ball and still to be considered as nice guy.

In a way.

If we want to get super detailed though *gasp* "being a nice guy" isn't the same, since the email isn't defining you as "a good cache owner, if..." (from what I recall of the email content). It's merely telling the owner what the next best steps are to remedy a potential problem.

 

The email does not say "You'll be a good cache owner if you do A or B in response to this email."

 

The email is "We think your ball is deflating. You should get a new ball before it goes flat, like a blue one or a red one; could be plastic, or rubber, new or used, from this store or that store." If your ball isn't deflating, no problem. If your ball is deflating, you could let it deflate, but then it won't work (eventually a reviewer will address the problem). If your ball is deflating, you should take action - you've got a few suggestions already, or you could just go find a yellow ball from the department store around the corner.

 

Oh, analogies.

[+niraD]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

[+justintim1999]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

 

Do you really want to advertise "do nothing" as an option?

[+thebruce0]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

As I agreed above, if the email implies something incorrectly, then it can/should be clarified, just like the algorithm can be adjusted (and is) when false negatives are reported.

That's not the same as saying the concept as a whole is bad or detrimental to geocaching in some way.

 

ETA: I suppose this question can be asked for those here who despise this Geocache Health Score function: If the email were worded differently, and the DNF component of the algorithm were adjusted to an agreeable result, would you no longer have a problem with the Geocache Health Score system?

Edited March 2, 2017 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

 

Do you really want to advertise "do nothing" as an option?

 

Not in so many words, but what if it were worded in a way that strongly implied there may be a problem with the cache, and if there is, then here are your best courses of action...?

As opposed to "Something flagged your cache as needing attention. You now need to do this..." (where "need" can be inferred as an ultimatum)

Edited March 2, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

ETA: I suppose this question can be asked for those here who despise this Geocache Health Score function: If the email were worded differently, and the DNF component of the algorithm were adjusted to an agreeable result, would you no longer have a problem with the Geocache Health Score system?

 

We do not yet know much about the algorithm. Quite probably it has a number of further weaknesses. I doubt that it is is a good idea if only the feedback of reviewers is heared when it affects all cachers (not only cache owners).

 

I also wonder how one would manage to adjust the DNF component reasonably without involving human intelligence. I would feel much more comfortable if I knew that by continuing my habit of logging DNFs for failures I will not cause inconveniences for the owners of the caches on which I log DNFs. That is something that concerns me much more than my own caches.

[+Team Microdot]

Thanks for injecting a few facts into the discussion.

 

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.

Are the volunteer reviewers the only ones who can provided feedback to Groundspeak? Is there any way for a CO who has received an erroneous "visit it or archive it" email to provide feedback to Groundspeak?

 

And if all feedback does have to go through the volunteer reviewers, then what would be the best way for a CO who has received an erroneous "visit it or archive it" email to provide that feedback to a volunteer reviewer?

 

And can providing such feedback be mentioned as an option in the "visit it or archive it" email?

 

I'm voting this my Post Of The Day - clear, succinct, constructive

 

What would make me very happy would be a meaningful response to this one from a Groundspeak representative - if only because it would hopefully resolve the issue that's led cezanne to bog down the thread with sufficient words to fill the Library of Congress

[+barefootjeff]

If done right, simply maintaining my caches should result in a high cache score, which is something I should be doing anyway.

But it won't, not while ever the score is based on DNFs that the CO has no control over, like too many muggles, too hard to reach or just looking in the wrong place. I could do maintenance visits to my caches every day but it won't stop those DNFs. How do we stop people from logging DNFs in those situations? The only answer I've been able to come up with is my dull-as-dishwater D1 hide in a place no muggle in his right mind would go, which of course no-one's interested in finding.

[+thebruce0]

I also wonder how one would manage to adjust the DNF component reasonably without involving human intelligence. I would feel much more comfortable if I knew that by continuing my habit of logging DNFs for failures I will not cause inconveniences for the owners of the caches on which I log DNFs. That is something that concerns me much more than my own caches.

What inconvenience? The only inconvenience is an occasional notice email.

Don't change your logging habits at all, presuming they are consistent and relevant and as intended.

 

If you're worried about COs being dissuaded from hiding good-condition-caches-likely-to-be-false-negatives, then tell them not to worry about the emails if they're received despite there being no problem with the cache.

 

Problem solved.

[+thebruce0]

How do we stop people from logging DNFs in those situations? The only answer I've been able to come up with is my dull-as-dishwater D1 hide in a place no muggle in his right mind would go, which of course no-one's interested in finding.

 

And then it'll still be hit with a low health score for not being found often

[cezanne]

What inconvenience? The only inconvenience is an occasional notice email.

Don't change your logging habits at all, presuming they are consistent and relevant and as intended.

 

If you're worried about COs being dissuaded from hiding good-condition-caches-likely-to-be-false-negatives, then tell them not to worry about the emails if they're received despite there being no problem with the cache.

 

Is it that easy? I do not think so. For example, what about cache owners who wish to only own caches with a very good health score? They would get angry at DNF logs that degrade the score of their caches.

It would create more pressure on turning DNF logs into notes.

[+L0ne.R]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

 

Do you really want to advertise "do nothing" as an option?

 

This ^^

Maybe include a statement like: 'Please contact the reviewer of this cache if you have any questions or concerns.'

[+L0ne.R]

ETA: I suppose this question can be asked for those here who despise this Geocache Health Score function: If the email were worded differently, and the DNF component of the algorithm were adjusted to an agreeable result, would you no longer have a problem with the Geocache Health Score system?

 

Good question.

[cezanne]

 

This ^^

Maybe include a statement like: 'Please contact the reviewer of this cache if you have any questions or concerns.'

 

Do you really think that then the reviewers would end up with less work? I'd guess that they would end up with more work than ever before at least

right now where the used algorithm seems to be quite immature.

 

Do you really think that it makes sense that the owner of cache that gets sent the mail because someone like me DNF-ed the cache due to being too clumsy to climb up to the cache should really be recommended to bother the reviewers who are overloaded anyway with something which is obvious anyhow namely that such a cache does not need attention.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+barefootjeff]

ETA: I suppose this question can be asked for those here who despise this Geocache Health Score function: If the email were worded differently, and the DNF component of the algorithm were adjusted to an agreeable result, would you no longer have a problem with the Geocache Health Score system?

 

Good question.

Yes, although the DNF blunt instrument metric still bothers me. A pity there aren't two types of DNF, one to say "I think the cache is missing" and the other "I'm sure the cache is fine but I just couldn't find it today".

 

But back to your question, yes, if the email provided an action the CO could take that says to the system and any reviewers who may be watching, "Hey, I'm awake, I got your email but it's a false positive, the DNF had nothing to do with cache health", and, most importantly, if performing that action wipes the cache's health score slate clean.

[+thebruce0]

Is it that easy? I do not think so. For example, what about cache owners who wish to only own caches with a very good health score? They would get angry at DNF logs that degrade the score of their caches.

It would create more pressure on turning DNF logs into notes.

Then that's their problem. There's no practical reason to get angry for receiving an occasional extra email. They need to calm down. The email is not some public criticism of the owner or their ability to maintain good caches. It's not a hit to CO pride. What other rare hypothetical instances can you concoct?

[+thebruce0]

But back to your question, yes, if the email provided an action the CO could take that says to the system and any reviewers who may be watching, "Hey, I'm awake, I got your email but it's a false positive, the DNF had nothing to do with cache health", and, most importantly, if performing that action wipes the cache's health score slate clean.

I don't think providing the CO a way to reset their cache score by merely responding to the email would be good in the slightest. But a response mechanism would be helpful. Whether it's perhaps a 'reply to this email' that adds their reply to a reviewable log, which the reviewer can see if/when they decide to check up on that flagged cache. And then the reviewer could clean up the cache score, and the CO wouldn't even have to worry about it any more. Easiest method, imo. CO can choose to quickly reply and be done with it.

 

1. GCXYZ gets a few DNFs - cache is flagged with a score falling below threshold, and CO is emailed.

2. CO reads, believes there's no issue, replies saying "Recent DNFs have been noticed, but all were posted by a group who weren't able to find the cache even though it's there. Cache is fine."

3. 2 months later, after no further finds, the reviewer does a sweep and decides to check flagged caches including this one, and sees the CO's note. Understands it's not often found, is hard to find, and the string of DNFs was from one single group visit.

4. Reviewer resets cache score. No further issue.

 

That's the general process I envision happens in the background. Only right now, the CO would need to contact the reviewer manually. Making the email address set up to record the CO response, ready for whatever date the reviewer chooses to address the flag would be, I think, productive.

Edited March 2, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

Is it that easy? I do not think so. For example, what about cache owners who wish to only own caches with a very good health score? They would get angry at DNF logs that degrade the score of their caches.

It would create more pressure on turning DNF logs into notes.

Then that's their problem. There's no practical reason to get angry for receiving an occasional extra email. They need to calm down. The email is not some public criticism of the owner or their ability to maintain good caches. It's not a hit to CO pride. What other rare hypothetical instances can you concoct?

 

Read the post just above where it is about actions to clear the health score of a cache and you will see that's not rare and hypothetical that someone is unhappy with his cache being flagged.

Deleting DNFs could be something some cachers will resort to and note that unlike finds there is no chance to have DNFs reinstalled by GS.

[+thebruce0]

Read the post just above where it is about actions to clear the health score of a cache and you will see that's not rare and hypothetical that someone is unhappy with his cache being flagged.

Deleting DNFs could be something some cachers will resort to and note that unlike finds there is no chance to have DNFs reinstalled by GS.

Again you're missing the point. These are choices that people are making needlessly because they don't understand that the email is not an ultimatum or an insult. If they come to know and understand this, none of this would be an issue, unless such a person still, willingly, stubbornly, gets angry at receiving an extra email once in a while. That is not a situation I'd consider important enough to see remedied at the expense of everyone else.

[+Team Microdot]

This post is in a response to various earlier posts but for clarity / efficiency I'm not going to directly quote anyone. There have already been too many posts which use 20 words where 1 would do.

 

Thinking about how an algorithm based system might work:

 

My day job involves, among other things, managing an email server and that email server has a number of integrated filtering systems intended to, in combination, filter out unsolicited and malicious email (sp@m and email with viruses or malware attached). There's nothing special or new about it - it's a basic feature of just about every email platform and it's technology that's been around for years - constantly being developed and improved.

 

As I thought about those systems it occured to me that they are layered and that emails pass through them in a linear way. Hence I would expect any algorithm based system used by Groundspeak to operate in a similar way. Before this realisation I had envisaged a complex system of competing scoring mechanisms which would be unruly to manage and tune and, if things went really bad, could produce very unexpected results.

 

When I think about the filtering system on the email server and how the data moves through it, I can almost picture it as a maze with one entrance and one exit - and some dead-ends. As the data moves through the system it is tested in various ways. Each test adds or deducts points from a score. Scores which reach certain thresholds may see that data trapped in one of the dead-ends. Data which successfully passes all the tests and still has a low score at the end passes out of the end of the maze and reaches its intended recipient.

 

Any data stuck in dead-end traps is flagged up to a human being - me in the example above. I then use my superior human intelligence to grade the data and decide what to do with it - allow it to be delivered because it's actually OK, delete it because it's not OK, even use it to train the automated systems to make them better at correctly identifying good and bad data.

 

The automated parts of the system have simple parameters which we can alter - increase / decrease in order to tune those automated systems. This is rarely necessary but the feature exists so that the system can be adjusted as the data passing through it changes over time. Other automated systems are largely self-regulating.

 

The system works very well indeed and it's very efficient and incidents where someone ends up not getting an email they should have done are virtually non-existent.

 

I expect Groundspeak's algorithm based system works in very similar ways. It's not rocket science.

 

For those who believe such systems lack sophistication and accuracy I would say look at Google and their bank balance and the way they've achieved dominance in their market.

 

And remember - it won't be long before self-driving cars become commonplace and, I'm sure you'll agree, driving a car is a heck of a lot more complex than helping human beings decide which plastic boxes need looking at and which don't.

 

That's all for this post - some of the other stuff I've been thinking about I'll save for another post.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Deleting DNFs could be something some cachers will resort to and note that unlike finds there is no chance to have DNFs reinstalled by GS.

 

Cache logs are never "deleted" they're only removed from view but remain in the database. The only logical way for this algorithm to work would be for it to process the logs in the database, and not just the logs on the cache page - therefore COs deleting DNF/NM/NA logs should have no effect on the way the algorithm works. Of course many COs won't realise this and may still delete DNFs, which would be unfortunate, but many COs have been doing that for years anyway.

[+barefootjeff]

But back to your question, yes, if the email provided an action the CO could take that says to the system and any reviewers who may be watching, "Hey, I'm awake, I got your email but it's a false positive, the DNF had nothing to do with cache health", and, most importantly, if performing that action wipes the cache's health score slate clean.

I don't think providing the CO a way to reset their cache score by merely responding to the email would be good in the slightest. But a response mechanism would be helpful. Whether it's perhaps a 'reply to this email' that adds their reply to a reviewable log, which the reviewer can see if/when they decide to check up on that flagged cache. And then the reviewer could clean up the cache score, and the CO wouldn't even have to worry about it any more. Easiest method, imo. CO can choose to quickly reply and be done with it.

 

1. GCXYZ gets a few DNFs - cache is flagged with a score falling below threshold, and CO is emailed.

2. CO reads, believes there's no issue, replies saying "Recent DNFs have been noticed, but all were posted by a group who weren't able to find the cache even though it's there. Cache is fine."

3. 2 months later, after no further finds, the reviewer does a sweep and decides to check flagged caches including this one, and sees the CO's note. Understands it's not often found, is hard to find, and the string of DNFs was from one single group visit.

4. Reviewer resets cache score. No further issue.

 

That's the general process I envision happens in the background. Only right now, the CO would need to contact the reviewer manually. Making the email address set up to record the CO response, ready for whatever date the reviewer chooses to address the flag would be, I think, productive.

I could live with that, but I note that, if the low health score was due to an uncleared NM, the CO can wipe that away just by logging an armchair OM, so the risk of someone gaming the system would be no greater if a similar mechanism for wiping away the effect of an irrelevant DNF was available.

[+thebruce0]

Deleting DNFs could be something some cachers will resort to and note that unlike finds there is no chance to have DNFs reinstalled by GS.

Cache logs are never "deleted" they're only removed from view but remain in the database. The only logical way for this algorithm to work would be for it to process the logs in the database, and not just the logs on the cache page - therefore COs deleting DNF/NM/NA logs should have no effect on the way the algorithm works. Of course many COs won't realise this and may still delete DNFs, which would be unfortunate, but many COs have been doing that for years anyway.

Or at least, weigh active DNFs higher than archived DNFs.

[+barefootjeff]

Just wondering, if a cache gets a low health score because of one or more DNFs, does someone subsequently logging a find restore the score to pristine or are those DNFs an indelible mark against it for all time to come?

[+thebruce0]

Yeah I don't think we even had confirmation that a score can be "reset", or if it's based on the entire cache life, with some elements that can increase it (such as OM). Would definitley be good to know

[+dprovan]

Let me reiterate and focus bluntly on my point for you: Knowledge 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".

That is all. That's it. Not an insult. Not one CO being in any way "better" than another. Simply, and strictly, knowledge that as a CO the email can be ignored. A CO who does not know this knows less than one who does.

The Health Score is a standard. It's not that important to me if the standard isn't rigidly enforced. I'm more worried about cezanne and fizzymagic deciding the standard isn't for them even if they aren't worried about whether they'll actually be held to it.

 

Furthermore, the more you guys talk about how the e-mail's just an e-mail, the more I can't help but hear a whisper "although I wish it were enforced" between the lines.

 

ETA: I suppose this question can be asked for those here who despise this Geocache Health Score function: If the email were worded differently, and the DNF component of the algorithm were adjusted to an agreeable result, would you no longer have a problem with the Geocache Health Score system?

No, it wouldn't make any difference to me. I don't consider the e-mail anything more than a symptom.

 

Deal with the problem, as a responsible CO. Or wait until the problem is raised with a reviewer who will then deal with your situation appropriately (giving them the benefiti of the doubt as responsible fair reviewers).

Why is that better than, "Deal with the problem as a responsible seeker. Or wait until the problem is raised by someone else with a reviewer who will then deal with the situation appropriately"? Since the time the cache remains listed is identical, it makes more sense to me to stress whose inaction is actually causing the delay. It's just a happy coincidence that that also stresses that the person being impacted by the bad cache should feel responsible for dealing with the problem.

 

That's why the human element (reviewer) is still a very important part of this whole thing.

This is the crux. I think the seeker is an even more important part of this whole thing. The reviewer should just be an ultra-reliable last resort.

[+Team Microdot]

Just wondering, if a cache gets a low health score because of one or more DNFs, does someone subsequently logging a find restore the score to pristine or are those DNFs an indelible mark against it for all time to come?

 

I see this as more of a sliding scale than simple on/off switches.

 

Some things will add a benenficial score and the health rating will increase. Other things will add a detrimental score and the health rating will decrease.

 

The health rating can wobble up and down constantly without triggering any response - so long as it stays above any pre-determined thresholds which have been selected as points at which some action must take place.

[+barefootjeff]

Yeah I don't think we even had confirmation that a score can be "reset", or if it's based on the entire cache life, with some elements that can increase it (such as OM). Would definitley be good to know

Hmm, if logging a find today on a cache I DNFed yesterday because of muggles doesn't wipe away any negative effect my DNF had on the cache's score, I'll be even more reluctant to ever log DNF on anything unless I'm convinced beyond doubt that it's missing.

[+Team Microdot]

Yeah I don't think we even had confirmation that a score can be "reset", or if it's based on the entire cache life, with some elements that can increase it (such as OM). Would definitley be good to know

Hmm, if logging a find today on a cache I DNFed yesterday because of muggles doesn't wipe away any negative effect my DNF had on the cache's score, I'll be even more reluctant to ever log DNF on anything unless I'm convinced beyond doubt that it's missing.

 

Even if the effect of your DNF and Found log was based on your personal DNF:Found ratio?

[+fuzziebear3]

Should it be ignored? No. Can it? Yes. Are there instances where the email is inaccurate? Yes. So acting as though this email is causing the sky to fall doesn't help.

 

If it should not be ignored, then in many cases archival (by the cache owner) is the only option.

It certainly cannot be avoided that the algorithm is inaccurate at times. It does not make sense however to formulate the e-mail in a way that does not mention all options that are ok for Groundspeak.

 

It's like either "eat the salad or leave the event" while they also would accept people not eating the salad if they explained that they are not allowed to eat salad out of medical reasons.

 

It's an email. Ignoring it is always an option. Other things are options too. They don't all have to be enumerated.

 

If a store indicates an item is on sale at a great price, do you have to go out and buy it at the store, and right now?

Maybe you think about it and buy it online somewhere else instead?

Maybe you decide it is a good price, but you don't want it now and will wait instead?

Maybe you are reminded of some similar item and go buy that instead?

Maybe you are busy and don't get out to get it right now anyway?

There are always many other options.

[+justintim1999]

If the cache has no problem, then it can be ignored.

Then the email should present that as an option.

 

To quote someone who has received the email (when the T5 cache in question had received only a single DNF): "The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it."

 

Do you really want to advertise "do nothing" as an option?

 

Not in so many words, but what if it were worded in a way that strongly implied there may be a problem with the cache, and if there is, then here are your best courses of action...?

As opposed to "Something flagged your cache as needing attention. You now need to do this..." (where "need" can be inferred as an ultimatum)

 

Is this the e-mail we're all discussing?

 

Your geocache looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

•Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an "Owner Maintenance" log so the community knows it's available to find.

 

•Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

•Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

Personally I don't think this is all that bad. Could it be re-worded a little better. Yes. Maybe include that this is only a friendly reminder and at this time your cache is in no danger of being archived. Also if you think your cache has no issues please post a OML to that effect

 

If I received this I'd check the cache page for info and proceed accordingly.

 

Now how this e-mail is generated is worthy of debate and I do think that some of the criteria need to be changed but I have no problem with the basic idea.

[+barefootjeff]

Yeah I don't think we even had confirmation that a score can be "reset", or if it's based on the entire cache life, with some elements that can increase it (such as OM). Would definitley be good to know

Hmm, if logging a find today on a cache I DNFed yesterday because of muggles doesn't wipe away any negative effect my DNF had on the cache's score, I'll be even more reluctant to ever log DNF on anything unless I'm convinced beyond doubt that it's missing.

 

Even if the effect of your DNF and Found log was based on your personal DNF:Found ratio?

DNFs are such a blunt instrument that I don't think a personal DNF:Found ratio really means anything. A third of my 78 DNFs to date ultimately turned out to be missing caches, the other two thirds were fine and I was the one at fault, but that'd still be true whether in between those DNFs were 500 finds or 5000.

 

On Wednesday I logged a DNF on a nearby new cache because there was a guy on a lawnmower eyeing me suspiciously and then got off the mower and started walking towards me. On Thursday I went back, there was no lawnmower man so I was able to find the cache. My DNF:Found ratio makes no difference to that scenario; the cache was fine and still is. Why should it have any sort of black mark still recorded against it?

[+justintim1999]

If done right, simply maintaining my caches should result in a high cache score, which is something I should be doing anyway.

But it won't, not while ever the score is based on DNFs that the CO has no control over, like too many muggles, too hard to reach or just looking in the wrong place. I could do maintenance visits to my caches every day but it won't stop those DNFs. How do we stop people from logging DNFs in those situations? The only answer I've been able to come up with is my dull-as-dishwater D1 hide in a place no muggle in his right mind would go, which of course no-one's interested in finding.

 

You shouldn't stop them from posting dnfs. It should taken into account and adjusted in how the health score is calculated as should difficulty and terrain. Both should be given less importance.

[+Team Microdot]

Yeah I don't think we even had confirmation that a score can be "reset", or if it's based on the entire cache life, with some elements that can increase it (such as OM). Would definitley be good to know

Hmm, if logging a find today on a cache I DNFed yesterday because of muggles doesn't wipe away any negative effect my DNF had on the cache's score, I'll be even more reluctant to ever log DNF on anything unless I'm convinced beyond doubt that it's missing.

 

Even if the effect of your DNF and Found log was based on your personal DNF:Found ratio?

DNFs are such a blunt instrument that I don't think a personal DNF:Found ratio really means anything. A third of my 78 DNFs to date ultimately turned out to be missing caches, the other two thirds were fine and I was the one at fault, but that'd still be true whether in between those DNFs were 500 finds or 5000.

 

On Wednesday I logged a DNF on a nearby new cache because there was a guy on a lawnmower eyeing me suspiciously and then got off the mower and started walking towards me. On Thursday I went back, there was no lawnmower man so I was able to find the cache. My DNF:Found ratio makes no difference to that scenario; the cache was fine and still is. Why should it have any sort of black mark still recorded against it?

 

Do you find more than you DNF?

 

If a DNF from you deducted one point* and a Found from you added three points* then your find would outweigh your DNF in terms of the health score of that cache.

 

*Arbitrary values chose for illustration only

[+Team Microdot]

If done right, simply maintaining my caches should result in a high cache score, which is something I should be doing anyway.

But it won't, not while ever the score is based on DNFs that the CO has no control over, like too many muggles, too hard to reach or just looking in the wrong place. I could do maintenance visits to my caches every day but it won't stop those DNFs. How do we stop people from logging DNFs in those situations? The only answer I've been able to come up with is my dull-as-dishwater D1 hide in a place no muggle in his right mind would go, which of course no-one's interested in finding.

 

You shouldn't stop them from posting dnfs. It should taken into account and adjusted in how the health score is calculated as should difficulty and terrain. Both should be given less importance.

 

I don't think difficulty and terrain should be taken into account at all on the basis that they are subjective and easily manipulated.

[+fuzziebear3]

Just wondering, if a cache gets a low health score because of one or more DNFs, does someone subsequently logging a find restore the score to pristine or are those DNFs an indelible mark against it for all time to come?

 

I see this as more of a sliding scale than simple on/off switches.

 

Some things will add a benenficial score and the health rating will increase. Other things will add a detrimental score and the health rating will decrease.

 

The health rating can wobble up and down constantly without triggering any response - so long as it stays above any pre-determined thresholds which have been selected as points at which some action must take place.

 

We dont know the algorithm. I would think it is a bit complex, and it can be tweaked.

 

Generally, I would think that an OM would reset it to a 'neutral to good' score at that point. Then we can see what happens after that, finds, or more DNFs, or another NM/NA.