Geocache Health Score

[+Team Microdot]

First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching.

 

I'm getting bored of hearing about them.

 

I say let them archive.

[cezanne]

First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching.

 

I'm getting bored of hearing about them.

 

I say let them archive.

 

I expected you to write that. But along the same lines as you do not care about these caches which are very valuable for me (including those I have found but which I regard as valuable for attracting the type of cacher that hides the caches I enjoy)

I do not mind to find occasionally some cache containers out there which are in bad condition and still in the game which you would have preferred to be removed earlier.

 

2 days ago I found a wet container in two wet bags - the log strip was dry as I had been added by the last finder before us. At this cache I also reflected about this tread and came to the conclusion that I would not have enjoyed that cache more with a perfectly well maintained container. I visited that cache after having visited a beautiful multi cache (with a container in good condition) where I still would have enjoyed the cache very much if I happened to encounter a wet container (which always can happen).

 

It's simply a clash of interests. I would not say that those who are willing to accept to lose some very nice caches in order to get rid of the junk they do not want to be bothered with have more right than cachers who are concerned about losing caches the loss of which cachers like you take into account as a by-product.

[+justintim1999]

First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching.

 

I'm getting bored of hearing about them.

 

I say let them archive.

 

I expected you to write that. But along the same lines as you do not care about these caches which are very valuable for me (including those I have found but which I regard as valuable for attracting the type of cacher that hides the caches I enjoy)

I do not mind to find occasionally some cache containers out there which are in bad condition and still in the game which you would have preferred to be removed earlier.

 

2 days ago I found a wet container in two wet bags - the log strip was dry as I had been added by the last finder before us. At this cache I also reflected about this tread and came to the conclusion that I would not have enjoyed that cache more with a perfectly well maintained container. I visited that cache after having visited a beautiful multi cache (with a container in good condition) where I still would have enjoyed the cache very much if I happened to encounter a wet container (which always can happen).

 

It's simply a clash of interests. I would not say that those who are willing to accept to lose some very nice caches in order to get rid of the junk they do not want to be bothered with have more right than cachers who are concerned about losing caches the loss of which cachers like you take into account as a by-product.

 

Did you post a NM?

 

You may be loosing a very nice location but the cache you speak of needs maintenance regardless of your own personal experience finding it.

[cezanne]

Did you post a NM?

 

You may be loosing a very nice location but the cache you speak of needs maintenance regardless of your own personal experience finding it.

 

I did not log so far at all and it will take a while until I find the time - there are other caches I need to log before that. The status of the cache is known anyway.

The location of the cache is nothing special at all. I just happened to be in the area.

Edited March 6, 2017 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching.

I'm getting bored of hearing about them.

That's the problem.

[+niraD]

If the opposition to this is about active cache owners receiving a couple more e-mails, well to me that's silly.

That depends entirely on the content of the email.

 

So let's fix the content of the email.

[+Team Microdot]

First, I was referring to the point in time when someone decides to archive a cache they maintained until then. Things like the emails discussed here can make alleviate the decision towards archival by someone not any longer attached to geocaching.

I'm getting bored of hearing about them.

That's the problem.

 

I thought the problem was that Groundspeak had received sufficient number of complaints from members of the geocaching community about unmaintained caches that they'd decided to take some action in a bid to address it.

 

The fact Cezanne can find sufficient time for encyclopedic posts on here but can't find the time to log anything on caches found which are clearly in need of maintenance serves only to reinforce that Groundspeak's decision was both necessary and the right one.

 

Personally I'd have logged straight away so that both the CO and anybody else who happened to be heading that way knew what the situation was and could take appropriate supplies with them to do something about the issue.

[Keystone]

There's no documented way to officially report a false positive, because apparently that'd let maintenance-shirkers off the hook.

 

Probably by design.

And yet, barefootjeff's example from late last year was escalated by several reviewers (I was one of them) after hearing about it in one of the other threads about the Cache Health score and the reminder emails. We have a thread in the reviewers' forum where we discuss observed glitches with the algorithm, and the developers monitor our observations.

 

I daresay that, eleven pages into this thread, the automated reminder email sent to barefootjeff is the most-discussed single HQ email in the history of the Groundspeak Forums.

[+Team Microdot]

There's no documented way to officially report a false positive, because apparently that'd let maintenance-shirkers off the hook.

 

Probably by design.

And yet, barefootjeff's example from late last year was escalated by several reviewers (I was one of them) after hearing about it in one of the other threads about the Cache Health score and the reminder emails. We have a thread in the reviewers' forum where we discuss observed glitches with the algorithm, and the developers monitor our observations.

 

I daresay that, eleven pages into this thread, the automated reminder email sent to barefootjeff is the most-discussed single HQ email in the history of the Groundspeak Forums.

 

But did barefootjeff receive any feedback as a result of all that discussion?

[+thebruce0]

The difference is that you still actively participate in geocaching too. Someone who only left some caches out there because there are some local cachers out there whom they want to please will not care at all about the big picture. They are willing to keep their caches up to the point where it is getting (too) inconvenient/cumbersome.

 

Moreover, what about geocaches in good condition hidden by cachers who passed away or left geocaching without having been able or willing to remove the container? Why shouldn't we enjoy those cachers if there are issues with them?

Archiving such caches for formal reasons does not solve a single issue and does not make anyone win anything in the cases I have in mind (not urban spots where 1000 people want to hide their new short lifed micro/nanos).

Why is the inherent value of the geocache in the container or listed owner? Why can someone else (like you, even) place a new container in the old/archived location, if the hike and the location are most valuable to you? Are you now saying that a cache, to you, has more value than the hike?

 

Even if a good cache that's well maintained by community gets archived because the CO doesn't respond after a reviewer attempts to contact them regarding false negative geocache health score notifications, someone can keep that location alive with a new cache placed in the exact same location.

Problem solved.

Again.

Unless you're only in it for the listing stats of the archived cache.

[cezanne]

Unless you're only in it for the listing stats of the archived cache.

 

No, I'm not into the listing stats or any stats at all.

 

Some weeks ago I started an attempt to find cachers who would be willing to adopt some very nice but not easy to get (and not often visited caches) of someone who left geocaching due to lack of time but whom I managed to contact.

Apart from two cachers living further away than would be ideal and who could only take over a single cache I did not receive any replies at all.

I have made similar experiences before and the same happened to other cachers.

 

If those caches get archived, noone will hide new caches there either. It's not like that the spots are there are in high demand.

 

The number of cachers who want to be responsible for caches that are not easy to get to and that are visited only few times decreases more and more and actions like the ones discussed here to not help in this regard.

It is so much easier to only search for caches or to put out only caches that are easy to get to.

 

In case of multi caches where the route is what the cache is about an additional issue comes in if someone would hide a new cache (not in the adoption case). Either the whole design would need to be changed or otherwise the cache would receive quite negative logs due to plagiarism. If a traditional is hidden at spot X where also the container plays a role or even the key role, just slightly shifting the hideout or hiding a different container will change the nature of the cache.

 

Most caches that I enjoy are hidden in areas so that they are not easy to reach for any cacher - we used to live with a system that puts different expectations on such caches than on a typical urban hide. As soon as this type of different treatment breaks down completely, it will have quite painful effects around here.

[+justintim1999]

Unless you're only in it for the listing stats of the archived cache.

 

No, I'm not into the listing stats or any stats at all.

 

Some weeks ago I started an attempt to find cachers who would be willing to adopt some very nice but not easy to get (and not often visited caches) of someone who left geocaching due to lack of time but whom I managed to contact.

Apart from two cachers living further away than would be ideal and who could only take over a single cache I did not receive any replies at all.

I have made similar experiences before and the same happened to other cachers.

 

If those caches get archived, noone will hide new caches there either. It's not like that the spots are there are in high demand.

 

The number of cachers who want to be responsible for caches that are not easy to get to and that are visited only few times decreases more and more and actions like the ones discussed here to not help in this regard.

It is so much easier to only search for caches or to put out only caches that are easy to get to.

 

In case of multi caches where the route is what the cache is about an additional issue comes in if someone would hide a new cache (not in the adoption case). Either the whole design would need to be changed or otherwise the cache would receive quite negative logs due to plagiarism. If a traditional is hidden at spot X where also the container plays a role or even the key role, just slightly shifting the hideout or hiding a different container will change the nature of the cache.

 

Most caches that I enjoy are hidden in areas so that they are not easy to reach for any cacher - we used to live with a system that puts different expectations on such caches than on a typical urban hide. As soon as this type of different treatment breaks down completely, it will have quite painful effects around here.

 

It's sad but unfortunately that's the natural order of things. I admit, I'd hesitate on owning this type of cache not because I wouldn't like to find it but because I don't think I could maintain it properly.

 

It's admirable that your trying to keep these caches alive but in doing so your arguing against a system that for all intense and purposes is trying to do something good. This you refuse to see because it may effect the very caches you hold dear.

 

I'm not saying there isn't hope. I'm saying that, because of the current geocaching climate, you may have to put up with a few more e-mails.

[+thebruce0]

Unless you're only in it for the listing stats of the archived cache.

 

No, I'm not into the listing stats or any stats at all.

...

If those caches get archived, noone will hide new caches there either. It's not like that the spots are there are in high demand.

*sigh*

You keep presenting the most rarest of potential circumstances as if it's the absolute downfall of a system. I'm sorry if something like this could ever happen, but sheesh...

The needs of the one, eh?

Edited March 6, 2017 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

 

It's sad but unfortunately that's the natural order of things. I admit, I'd hesitate on owning this type of cache not because I wouldn't like to find it but because I don't think I could maintain it properly.

 

That's mainly a question of what properly means. For a cache that gets 1-2 visits a year, it's for example very questionable to require that a wet log book gets exchanged within 14 days while for a nano with 15 visits per week a log book that is full for a month is a real issue.

 

It's admirable that your trying to keep these caches alive but in doing so your arguing against a system that for all intense and purposes is trying to do something good.

 

That's subjective - for me there are more cons than pros if the system is automated.

 

This you refuse to see because it may effect the very caches you hold dear.

 

I do not refuse to see the advantages it has for others (and in particular the reviewers). Cachers like me have much more to lose than to win.

 

I'd welcome any effort that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible. Arguing that this health score approach in its current form

is something all cachers who care about cache quality and do not appreciate junk profit from is simply wrong.

It's unfair to classify those who have valid concerns as cachers who appreciate junk.

 

I'm not saying there isn't hope. I'm saying that, because of the current geocaching climate, you may have to put up with a few more e-mails.

 

How often shall I repeat that I'm not concerned about mails that I might receive? I'm concerned about caches that get lost in my area and not about mails sent to me.

[+thebruce0]

How often shall I repeat that I'm not concerned about mails that I might receive? I'm concerned about caches that get lost in my area and not about mails sent to me.

Given the grand scheme, for this extremely rare circumstance you are so very concerned about I don't think you'll get much support beyond sympathy.

 

If it's a great location, the CO is not active, and despite being in a good condition, the reviewer still decides to archive it, and no one is willing to put another cache there to keep the location alive, then... sorry, but, oh well.

 

(mainly because of these basic infractions: the CO has abandoned their responsibilities, regardless of their caches' conditions; and proxy maintenance by community is not a condoned strategy)

Edited March 6, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

I'd welcome any effort that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible.

 

I'd welcome any effort from YOU that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible - and I've asked you to offer some input in that manner.

 

Sadly you appear to have ignored that request and instead continued to simply complain that your needs are not being catered to and this is why I have lost sympathy for your cause.

[cezanne]

How often shall I repeat that I'm not concerned about mails that I might receive? I'm concerned about caches that get lost in my area and not about mails sent to me.

Given the grand scheme, for this extremely rare circumstance you are so very concerned about I don't think you'll get much support beyond sympathy.

 

I would not say that it is extremely rare that caches hard to reach are owned by cachers who are not any longer actively hunting for caches (this includes those who still maintain their caches and those who do not maintain them).

 

If it's a great location, the CO is not active, and despite being in a good condition, the reviewer still decides to archive it, and no one is willing to put another cache there to keep the location alive, then... sorry, but, oh well.

 

Of course that could happen already with the "old" system - my point was mainly that these are cases where the target audience for such caches will not have the slightest interest that a reviewer takes any action.

 

Already right now there are way more reasons than the ones often mentioned that cachers often refrain from posting NM and NA logs and to some extent also DNF logs and that trend will for sure grow and not become weaker by initiatives like the one discussed here.

[+barefootjeff]

There's no documented way to officially report a false positive, because apparently that'd let maintenance-shirkers off the hook.

 

Probably by design.

And yet, barefootjeff's example from late last year was escalated by several reviewers (I was one of them) after hearing about it in one of the other threads about the Cache Health score and the reminder emails. We have a thread in the reviewers' forum where we discuss observed glitches with the algorithm, and the developers monitor our observations.

 

I daresay that, eleven pages into this thread, the automated reminder email sent to barefootjeff is the most-discussed single HQ email in the history of the Groundspeak Forums.

 

But did barefootjeff receive any feedback as a result of all that discussion?

The only feedback I received was a reply from the Support Centre to my follow-up telling them the DNFer had gone back and found the cache, confirming that the cache was no longer showing it needed maintenance, and a post from Keystone in the forum thread at the time saying "In this case, I'm betting that the odd result was due to the fact that there had only been one find on the cache before the DNF, and the cache had been available for about six weeks."

 

To get to that point took some discourse with the DNFer, swapping photos to confirm she really was looking in the wrong place, some emails back and forth to the Support Centre, a page of posts on the forum and, of course, the effort by the DNFer to go back out and find it to clear its name.

 

It was a tough few days trying to figure out what I was expected to do. As an engineer, I've been trained that "ignore it and hope it goes away" is never the correct response, and none of the options given in the email were palatable under the circumstances. To say or infer that false positives have no consequences is understating things.

[cezanne]

I'd welcome any effort that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible.

 

I'd welcome any effort from YOU that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible - and I've asked you to offer some input in that manner.

 

Sadly you appear to have ignored that request and instead continued to simply complain that your needs are not being catered to and this is why I have lost sympathy for your cause.

 

I'm sorry. I must have overlooked that request in the many pages here. It did not happen intentionally.

 

While I have some ideas on this issue I wonder whether it makes sense to outline them here. While I found your proposed rating system interesting and more appealing than the one

which GS apparently has in use right now, I do not even have any hopes that a system like the one you suggested ever would get implemented and even less a more complex one.

 

As the lost sympathy is regarded, I can deal with that. My goal was not to receive sympathy anyhow. I do think however that it is also in the interest of cachers like yourself

if more cachers are willing to post DNF, NM and NA logs if appropriate. If they are concerned about losing caches, they will shy away from such logs which is not helping the cause.

 

I'm somehow quite frustrated as it turned out in the course of this discussion that even a simple and very moderate change of the text of the e-mail which is sent to the cachers does not seem

to be within what we can hope for. Originally I thought it was simply an unfortunate formulation that happened and that GS would be more than willing to make a small change once pointed to the

way the mail could be understood.

[+Team Microdot]

I'd welcome any effort that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible.

 

I'd welcome any effort from YOU that tries to have both target groups in mind as well as possible - and I've asked you to offer some input in that manner.

 

Sadly you appear to have ignored that request and instead continued to simply complain that your needs are not being catered to and this is why I have lost sympathy for your cause.

 

I'm sorry. I must have overlooked that request in the many pages here. It did not happen intentionally.

 

Given your usual attention to detail I find that hard to believe.

 

While I have some ideas on this issue I wonder whether it makes sense to outline them here.

 

What harm can it do? If others are prepared to share their thoughts to be shot down in flames, why not you?

 

I'm somehow quite frustrated as it turned out in the course of this discussion that even a simple and very moderate change of the text of the e-mail which is sent to the cachers does not seem

to be within what we can hope for. Originally I thought it was simply an unfortunate formulation that happened and that GS would be more than willing to make a small change once pointed to the

way the mail could be understood.

 

This does seem to be a sticking point generally and one I can sympathise with - on both sides of the equation.

 

Where a false positive occurs the current email doesn't leave the CO with a course of action in which they can, with confidence, know that their cache is safe.

 

The difficulty from Groundspeak's side, I imagine, is that any 'get out of jail free card' is likely to be taken advantage of by the very people who would use any available opportunity to continue to avoid dealing with their unmaintained caches.

 

In short, it seems there are competing objectives in place and I wish I had a solution, but I don't.

 

Although, on reviewing again the page I linked to at the top of this thread, there does seem to be an endorsed course of action:

 

Role of community volunteer reviewer

 

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance.

 

Answer your reviewer with a “Write Note” on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance.

 

Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun!

[+barefootjeff]

I'm somehow quite frustrated as it turned out in the course of this discussion that even a simple and very moderate change of the text of the e-mail which is sent to the cachers does not seem

to be within what we can hope for. Originally I thought it was simply an unfortunate formulation that happened and that GS would be more than willing to make a small change once pointed to the

way the mail could be understood.

 

This does seem to be a sticking point generally and one I can sympathise with - on both sides of the equation.

 

Where a false positive occurs the current email doesn't leave the CO with a course of action in which they can, with confidence, know that their cache is safe.

 

The difficulty from Groundspeak's side, I imagine, is that any 'get out of jail free card' is likely to be taken advantage of by the very people who would use any available opportunity to continue to avoid dealing with their unmaintained caches.

 

In short, it seems there are competing objectives in place and I wish I had a solution, but I don't.

 

Although, on reviewing again the page I linked to at the top of this thread, there does seem to be an endorsed course of action:

 

Role of community volunteer reviewer

 

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance.

 

Answer your reviewer with a “Write Note” on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance.

 

Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun!

This still assumes that some form of maintenance is needed. I suppose if it's clear the DNF that triggered the email had nothing to do with a maintenance issue, the reviewer should see that and take no action, although if the DNF is vague, the CO may well have messaged the DNFer privately to confirm whether or not a visit is needed and the reviewer wouldn't be aware of that conversation. Whenever I get a DNF that isn't clearly unrelated to the cache (flat GPSr batteries, bad weather or muggles, for example), I usually message the DNFer to see if they'd like another hint and to give myself a better idea on whether I should check on it, so there's a lot of information the reviewer isn't privy to.

[+thebruce0]

I would not say that it is extremely rare that caches hard to reach are owned by cachers who are not any longer actively hunting for caches (this includes those who still maintain their caches and those who do not maintain them).

Proof?

 

If it's a great location, the CO is not active, and despite being in a good condition, the reviewer still decides to archive it, and no one is willing to put another cache there to keep the location alive, then... sorry, but, oh well.

Of course that could happen already with the "old" system - my point was mainly that these are cases where the target audience for such caches will not have the slightest interest that a reviewer takes any action.

 

Already right now there are way more reasons than the ones often mentioned that cachers often refrain from posting NM and NA logs and to some extent also DNF logs and that trend will for sure grow and not become weaker by initiatives like the one discussed here.

That latter part has nothing to do with the issue you quoted. You still haven't demonstrated that the good-condition-abandoned-but-no-one-wants-to-publish-again caches that eventally get judged for archival are of any significant portion in the grand scheme to weigh as relevant false-negative issues to fix with the algorithm.

[+thebruce0]

Role of community volunteer reviewer

 

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance.

 

Answer your reviewer with a "Write Note" on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance.

 

Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun!

This still assumes that some form of maintenance is needed. I suppose if it's clear the DNF that triggered the email had nothing to do with a maintenance issue, the reviewer should see that and take no action, although if the DNF is vague, the CO may well have messaged the DNFer privately to confirm whether or not a visit is needed and the reviewer wouldn't be aware of that conversation. Whenever I get a DNF that isn't clearly unrelated to the cache (flat GPSr batteries, bad weather or muggles, for example), I usually message the DNFer to see if they'd like another hint and to give myself a better idea on whether I should check on it, so there's a lot of information the reviewer isn't privy to.

And if it said "and let them know when you will do maintenance if it is needed" would that be ok? Or is still giving a "get out of jail free" card?

Honestly by that point the reviewer is already reviewing the cache that has been brought to their attention, and they should be able to tell if it really needs maintenance or not. Posting the note with any content is helpful for the reviewer.

 

It would be odd, extra work, if you receive the email, know it's a false positive, then post a note on the cache page saying there's nothing wrong - for anyone reading the listing who probably wouldn't think there's a problem anyway since it was the algorithm that "thought" there might be. But at least in that case if the reviewer does decide to check it out there's a response. Yet, if there weren't, the reviewer may see that there's no maintenance issue and there's no problem anyway (CO ignored email, reviewer saw no issue).

 

Really, I think the only real concern is what people who receive the email infer from its wording. Not what actually may come about from it, regardless of whether maintenance is actually required or not.

 

So again I still hold that at most the only things I'd say need a bit of work are the wording of the email and the weighing of DNFs to whatever degree.

[cezanne]

I would not say that it is extremely rare that caches hard to reach are owned by cachers who are not any longer actively hunting for caches (this includes those who still maintain their caches and those who do not maintain them).

Proof?

 

I could list many such caches in my area but I certainly will not do that for obvious reasons.

Since the focus of geocaching has changed it is not so surprising that many hiders of hiking caches left or at least stopped to hunt for caches.

 

That latter part has nothing to do with the issue you quoted. You still haven't demonstrated that the good-condition-abandoned-but-no-one-wants-to-publish-again caches that eventally get judged for archival are of any significant portion in the grand scheme to weigh as relevant false-negative issues to fix with the algorithm.

 

Before one thinks about fixing the algorithm and how that can be done, it is the e-mail message that should be fixed. That would help already a lot and can be very relevant when to comes to reactions to the mail that take place before a reviewer takes any action at all.

 

I do not think at all the argument that GS does not want to encourage someone to ignore maintenance requests. Those who wish to ignore things, will do it anyway. Many of those cachers who care will either be irrated like barefootjeff or will decide to archive their caches (in particular those who are not any longer emotionally attached to geocaching). Somehow it affects the wrong people.

[+thebruce0]

I would not say that it is extremely rare that caches hard to reach are owned by cachers who are not any longer actively hunting for caches (this includes those who still maintain their caches and those who do not maintain them).

Proof?

 

I could list many such caches in my area but I certainly will not do that for obvious reasons.

Since the focus of geocaching has changed it is not so surprising that many hiders of hiking caches left or at least stopped to hunt for caches.

Extremely rare in the grand scheme - that which, worldwide, the algorithm checks. Not just 'my local area'. We know that your local area seems to be perfect for your caching preferences, as evidenced in many discussions. So, can you demonstrate that good-condition-abandoned-but-no-one-wants-to-publish-again caches that eventally get judged for archival are of any significant portion in the grand scheme to weigh as relevant false-negative issues to fix with the algorithm?

[cezanne]

Extremely rare in the grand scheme - that which, worldwide, the algorithm checks. Not just 'my local area'.

 

In this case I meant the whole country and I think that wherever caches exist that involve remote long hikes they are more often than not old caches. Of course you could argue that due to the influx of power caches and drive ins every other cache type became extremely rare. Then whatever approach is used will mainly have those caches in mind that to a large extent created part of the problem the approach tries to take care of.

[+sir dumil]

I quite like the idea of geocache health scoring.

It could be a welcome tool to CO's if it were exposed in the "Geocache (Yours)" listing.