Geocache Health Score

[+dprovan]

I have a bunch of little indicator lights on the dashboard of my car. I'm not sure what all of them mean, but I know that when one of them lights up, it means I better pay attention and have the issue, whatever it is, addressed. I know if these little automated indicator lights weren't there, or malfunctioned somehow, chances are things would be much worse.

Idiot lights are fine when they accurately reflect a problem. The case we're discussing is when the algorithm triggers a warning when there isn't a problem. It's fine to have a low fuel warning that tells me I've only got 40 miles until I need gas. Not so reasonable when it tells me when I've got 400 miles until I need gas because the person setting the warning line knew that there are locations where the nearest gas station is 200 miles away. A light that comes on when my range is 400 miles would be useless to me because it would always be on.

 

I don't see an issue with Groundspeak responding to the Community about the growing problem of abandoned caches.

My main concern is that GS is responding to the perceived problem of abandoned caches instead of the actual problem of people in the community not understanding that they hold the solution to abandoned caches in their own hands.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't see an issue with Groundspeak responding to the Community about the growing problem of abandoned caches.

My main concern is that GS is responding to the perceived problem of abandoned caches instead of the actual problem of people in the community not understanding that they hold the solution to abandoned caches in their own hands.

 

The problem of abandoned caches is very real. Definitely not imaginary.

 

People in the community not understanding that they hold the solution to abandoned caches in their own hands may be another problem.

 

And yet another problem may be that users do in fact understand that they hold the solution to abandoned caches in their own hands and may be reluctant for various reasons to take the necessary steps.

 

If I were a gambling man I'd probably wager that as app use becomes more prevalent in geocaching that Groundspeak have noticed the shape of the community changing - and recognised that different systems are needed to cater for this evolution.

 

I might also wager that the Cache Health Score is a natural part of that evolution.

 

It might just turn out that Groundspeak are actually a couple of steps ahead in working toward an encompassing solution

[+justintim1999]

I've recently discovered that there's this new thing called a Geocache Health Score that I'd not previously heard of.

 

You can read all about it here.

 

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

The community should be taking responsibility but we both know that that's not always the case.

 

I don't think the difficulty and terrain rating or the time between finds should be taken into account. Neither have very little baring on the condition of the cache.

 

I assume that an owners maintenance log would increase the cache score? If so it's too bad they didn't mention that in the release.

[+Team Microdot]

I've recently discovered that there's this new thing called a Geocache Health Score that I'd not previously heard of.

 

You can read all about it here.

 

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

The community should be taking responsibility but we both know that that's not always the case.

 

I don't think the difficulty and terrain rating or the time between finds should be taken into account. Neither have very little baring on the condition of the cache.

 

I assume that an owners maintenance log would increase the cache score? If so it's too bad they didn't mention that in the release.

 

If the algorithm is in any way 'smart' I wouldn't expect GS to publish its details as no doubt there'd be people out there who would be more willing to try to game the system than they would to go out and address legitimate maintenance issues.

[+Touchstone]

I've recently discovered that there's this new thing called a Geocache Health Score that I'd not previously heard of.

 

You can read all about it here.

 

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

The community should be taking responsibility but we both know that that's not always the case.

 

I don't think the difficulty and terrain rating or the time between finds should be taken into account. Neither have very little baring on the condition of the cache.

 

I assume that an owners maintenance log would increase the cache score? If so it's too bad they didn't mention that in the release.

I actually don't see an issue with your final point. I'm not surprised that Groundspeak wouldn't mention ways in which to *game* the system, just like they don't mention ways in which you can game the submission process. In the small insignificant number of cases where this might be happening, it seem like it would fall back on the Community to police itself and involve a Reviewer to make a judgement on the situation.

 

If, what you state, does occur, and a CO loads up their cache page with OM log types in order to attempt to fly under the radar, what have they gained? Avoiding an email from Groundspeak? Big whoop! A lonely backcountry cache might be able to go for months or years doing something like that without much attention, but I'm pretty certain an urban cache, where real estate is a precious commodity to most cachers in the Community, behavior like that will raise people's ire and it will eventually get called out.

 

I think the main benefit of such a system will be to cull out those Listings with inactive cache owners, where the caches are not getting attended to, going down that slowly circling drain hole to eventual Archival, and avoiding the increasing issue of "throwdowns" that's occurring in my area.

[+coachstahly]

Not really sure either. It sounds great, at least until the first cacher who routinely takes care of maintenance gets dinged for a cache with multiple DNFs (even though it's a 4 D cache) or is a remote cache with a find rate of once every two years.

 

It seems the algorithm takes D/T into account....

 

• Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect.

And a reviewer has a look if the health score remains low...

 

"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."

 

It sounds like this will be good for the pastime. Maybe there will be less junk, or this will morph into a public health score that will allow us to filter out those caches.

I was debating the idea of adding your name to my original post because I was certain that this was something you would be in favor of.

 

As has been mentioned already, a 2/5 and a 3/3 cache were both dinged by the algorithm. If D/T is taken into account, it apparently whiffed on these two examples. I don't have a huge problem with this, but I think it certainly needs some tweaking in wording and the logarithmic variants used to generate the health score.

[+justintim1999]

I've recently discovered that there's this new thing called a Geocache Health Score that I'd not previously heard of.

 

You can read all about it here.

 

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

The community should be taking responsibility but we both know that that's not always the case.

 

I don't think the difficulty and terrain rating or the time between finds should be taken into account. Neither have very little baring on the condition of the cache.

 

I assume that an owners maintenance log would increase the cache score? If so it's too bad they didn't mention that in the release.

I actually don't see an issue with your final point. I'm not surprised that Groundspeak wouldn't mention ways in which to *game* the system, just like they don't mention ways in which you can game the submission process. In the small insignificant number of cases where this might be happening, it seem like it would fall back on the Community to police itself and involve a Reviewer to make a judgement on the situation.

 

If, what you state, does occur, and a CO loads up their cache page with OM log types in order to attempt to fly under the radar, what have they gained? Avoiding an email from Groundspeak? Big whoop! A lonely backcountry cache might be able to go for months or years doing something like that without much attention, but I'm pretty certain an urban cache, where real estate is a precious commodity to most cachers in the Community, behavior like that will raise people's ire and it will eventually get called out.

 

I think the main benefit of such a system will be to cull out those Listings with inactive cache owners, where the caches are not getting attended to, going down that slowly circling drain hole to eventual Archival, and avoiding the increasing issue of "throwdowns" that's occurring in my area.

 

All the actions that would negatively effect a cache score are listed. Just thought it would be nice to mention that maintaining your cache and posting owner maintenance logs would increase that score.

 

You did touch on the one problem with the system. An owner could simply post owners maintenance logs without ever checking up on the cache. An unmaintained cache could continue like this indefinitely until someone caught on or the good Samaritan fixed it up. Between all this and the unwillingness of many to post NM's, who knows how long they could get away with it.

[+Team Microdot]

All the actions that would negatively effect a cache score are listed. Just thought it would be nice to mention that maintaining your cache and posting owner maintenance logs would increase that score.

 

You did touch on the one problem with the system. An owner could simply post owners maintenance logs without ever checking up on the cache. An unmaintained cache could continue like this indefinitely until someone caught on or the good Samaritan fixed it up. Between all this and the unwillingness of many to post NM's, who knows how long they could get away with it.

 

Delay the application of any beneficial score arising from an OM log until after the next find where the user provides a cache health score.

 

If the cache health score is a positive one, trust the OM and apply the beneficial score. If it isn't, don't.

[+L0ne.R]

My main concern is that GS is responding to the perceived problem of abandoned caches instead of the actual problem of people in the community not understanding that they hold the solution to abandoned caches in their own hands.

 

Abandoned caches are not a perceived problem. They are a real problem. The other problem is the apathy around abandoned caches. And the desire to keep a listing alive especially an old listing, with no regard for responsible ownership and integrity of the pastime/game.

 

Much of the community doesn't want to get involved in the "solution". They don't want to post NMs, and especially not NAs. NAs they feel, are the work of reviewers (even when pointed out that reviewers are only required to respond to NAs logs posted by 'finders').

 

For a large part of the community, getting the cache archived is not the solution. Almost monthly, someone starts a topic lamenting about how Groundspeak should allow the adoption of abandoned cache listings. When the solution is pointed out--NM > NA, hide your own cache there--they say 'Thanks for advice but I don't want to log an NM or NA, the reviewer should do it, or I should be allowed to adopt it'. Then they do nothing (or unofficially adopt the cache by throwing a cache down, to keep the listing alive). I get the feeling that they don't want to be responsible for a cache, they just want to keep the listing alive.

Edited February 28, 2017 by L0ne.R

[cezanne]

For a large part of the community, getting the cache archived is not the solution. Almost monthly, someone starts a topic lamenting about how Groundspeak should allow the adoption of abandoned cache listings. When the solution is pointed out--NM > NA, hide your own cache there--they say 'Thanks for advice but I don't want to log an NM or NA, the reviewer should do it, or I should be allowed to adopt it'. Then they do nothing (or unofficially adopt the cache by throwing a cache down, to keep the listing alive). I get the feeling that they don't want to be responsible for a cache, they just want to keep the listing alive.

 

I think you are simplifying things.

 

When it comes to me I would in any case prefer an old cache listing to stay when the new cache is just a traditional cache at the same location or a multi cache where only the container got exchanged but everything else stayed the same. I'm also against a new listing of the same owner in case of such changes. Both opinions have nothing to do with not wnating to be responsible for caches.

 

Whenever I manage to rescue a cache that I regard as valuable I'm happy. A new listing at the same location would be the much worse solution to me. I wish that future cachers can visit the cache and not that also those who have already found the cache (which typically in my area includes me) either visit it again (which most do) or decide to ignore it. Typically the second visit if everything is already known creates less positive logs, fewer FPs etc from those who have been at the precursor cache which is not surprising. Of course there are exceptions for example if someone hides a special container but then it appeals to a different audience.

 

Moreover even in those cases where I think that a new listing is the best option, I would never recommend to someone to first submit a NA log and then hide a new cache there. That's bad style in my opinion. If an independent person files the NA log, that's a different matter.

[+Manville Possum]

Moreover even in those cases where I think that a new listing is the best option, I would never recommend to someone to first submit a NA log and then hide a new cache there. That's bad style in my opinion. If an independent person files the NA log, that's a different matter.

 

When a listing needs archived for any reason, it should not just be holding up space where another active member could place and maintain a geocache. I see more wrong with the community propping up junk, which seems to be more common than people actually hiding their own caches. Then we end up with a data base of soggy paper/add a log and pill bottle caches.

[+Team Microdot]

Moreover even in those cases where I think that a new listing is the best option, I would never recommend to someone to first submit a NA log and then hide a new cache there. That's bad style in my opinion. If an independent person files the NA log, that's a different matter.

 

I find the idea that a person willing and able to place a new, properly maintained cache in place of an abandoned junky cache shouldn't be allowed to post a Needs Archived utterly ridiculous.

 

Moreover, I consider this attitude unhelpful and perhaps even harmful to cache health and typical of some of the strange ideas people seem to have about what should and shouldn't be allowed when it comes to ridding the map of broken, dead and dying caches.

[cezanne]

Moreover even in those cases where I think that a new listing is the best option, I would never recommend to someone to first submit a NA log and then hide a new cache there. That's bad style in my opinion. If an independent person files the NA log, that's a different matter.

 

I find the idea that a person willing and able to place a new, properly maintained cache in place of an abandoned junky cache shouldn't be allowed to post a Needs Archived utterly ridiculous.

 

I did not say "should not be allowed". It is allowed anyway and I did not ask for a new guideline.

 

I chose my words carefully and made clear that it's about my opinion.

 

Moreover, I consider this attitude unhelpful and perhaps even harmful to cache health and typical of some of the strange ideas people seem to have about what should and shouldn't be allowed when it comes to ridding the map of broken, dead and dying caches.

 

I do not think that my attitude is harmful at all. I made it clear that I prefer if it can be managed that an old cache survives and gets back into good shape.

 

There might be exceptional cases where the person filing a NA needs to be the same than the one who hides a new cache, but in general this is not necessary.

[+Manville Possum]

I find the idea that a person willing and able to place a new, properly maintained cache in place of an abandoned junky cache shouldn't be allowed to post a Needs Archived utterly ridiculous.

 

I totally agree with you. It makes it sound like I'm a bad person for reporting a problem with a geocache where I could place and maintain a new one.

[+Team Microdot]

Moreover even in those cases where I think that a new listing is the best option, I would never recommend to someone to first submit a NA log and then hide a new cache there. That's bad style in my opinion. If an independent person files the NA log, that's a different matter.

 

I find the idea that a person willing and able to place a new, properly maintained cache in place of an abandoned junky cache shouldn't be allowed to post a Needs Archived utterly ridiculous.

 

I did not say "should not be allowed". It is allowed anyway and I did not ask for a new guideline.

 

I chose my words carefully and made clear that it's about my opinion.

 

Moreover, I consider this attitude unhelpful and perhaps even harmful to cache health and typical of some of the strange ideas people seem to have about what should and shouldn't be allowed when it comes to ridding the map of broken, dead and dying caches.

 

I do not think that my attitude is harmful at all. I made it clear that I prefer if it can be managed that an old cache survives and gets back into good shape.

 

There might be exceptional cases where the person filing a NA needs to be the same than the one who hides a new cache, but in general this is not necessary.

 

I read your post to be suggesting that logging NA on an abandoned and junky cache and then filling that spot with a new cache was bad and I find that view unhelpful and potentially harmful. That's my opinion.

[+Manville Possum]

I read your post to be suggesting that logging NA on an abandoned and junky cache and then filling that spot with a new cache was bad and I find that view unhelpful and potentially harmful. That's my opinion.

 

My take exactly, and I have posted NA before and placed a cache of my own when the location became available. I see nothing wrong with it.

[cezanne]

I read your post to be suggesting that logging NA on an abandoned and junky cache and then filling that spot with a new cache was bad and I find that view unhelpful and potentially harmful. That's my opinion.

 

Bad and bad style are not the same. I wrote about old caches in general not necesarily abandoned ones. If a cache is abandoned, then an attempt to rescue it will fail anyhow. If the owner can still be reached, there are often other options than archiving and listing a new caches which I regard as preferable. It fixes the issues with the existing cache and at the same time is more immune against abuse and does not foster the anyhow existing tendency towards a cache inflation and short life cycles of geocaches.

 

Moreover, as I said it's usually not a problem to have the NA log filed by another person (stress on person, not another account).

[+Manville Possum]

Bad and bad style are not the same.

 

Yes, they are the same. You made your opinion very clear.

[cezanne]

Bad and bad style are not the same.

 

Yes, they are the same.

 

No, they are not the same.

 

The outcome if instead of a junky cache a cache can be found which is pleasant to find is still a positive one even if the way to achieve that might have involved something which is easy to abuse and is thus regarded as bad style by me.

 

One could for example easily sabotage a mystery cache or long multi cache which blocks an area where one wants to place a cache. If the person who files a NA and the person who potentially hides a new cache are not the same, there is a smaller danger of abuse and a smaller risk that the NA is influenced by the wish to place a cache.

[+Manville Possum]

Bad and bad style are not the same.

 

Yes, they are the same.

 

No, they are not the same.

 

The outcome if instead of a junky cache a cache can be found which is pleasant to find is still a positive one even if the way to achieve that might have involved something which is easy to abuse and is thus regarded as bad style by me.

 

One could for example easily sabotage a mystery cache or long multi cache which blocks an area where one wants to place a cache. If the person who files a NA and the person who potentially hides a new cache are not the same, there is a smaller danger of abuse and a smaller risk that the NA is influenced by the wish to place a cache.

Yes they are, and I don't agree with you. You were quite clear that you think it bad form to post a NA on a geocache that needs archived and place one of my own there that I can maintain. Appears that you support throwdowns and community maintenance over actual cache ownership. I see that as a problem, and a reason that a health score is a workable idea.

[+dprovan]

The problem of abandoned caches is very real. Definitely not imaginary.

You imagine a problem, but the community that sees those abandoned caches does not since they haven't done anything about them.

 

You see abandoned caches as a general problem with geocaching, but I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

 

If I were a gambling man I'd probably wager that as app use becomes more prevalent in geocaching that Groundspeak have noticed the shape of the community changing - and recognised that different systems are needed to cater for this evolution.

I won't take that bet, but I think it's sad to watch geocaching change from a system based on cooperation within the local community to one where everything's dictated by the central authority.

[cezanne]

You were quite clear that you think it bad form to post a NA on a geocache that needs archived and place one of my own there that I can maintain. Appears that you support throwdowns and community maintenance over actual cache ownership.

 

No, I do not support throwdowns at all. I'm aware however of quite a number of cases where it was possible to find a way to fix cache issues together with the cache owner (sometimes via adoption, sometimes the cache owner stayed the owner and took care of the cache) and if that was not possible (e.g. if the owner left geocaching), in most areas it is no problem at all if a different cacher files the NA than the one who hides a new cache.

In an area if only one active cacher however things are of course different - that's why I mentioned that there could be exceptional cases - in such areas I'm however anyhow not concerned about abuse.

[+Manville Possum]

You were quite clear that you think it bad form to post a NA on a geocache that needs archived and place one of my own there that I can maintain. Appears that you support throwdowns and community maintenance over actual cache ownership.

 

No, I do not support throwdowns at all. I'm aware however of quite a number of cases where it was possible to find a way to fix cache issues together with the cache owner (sometimes via adoption, sometimes the cache owner stayed the owner and took care of the cache) and if that was not possible (e.g. if the owner left geocaching), in most areas it is no problem at all if a different cacher files the NA than the one who hides a new cache.

In an area if only one active cacher however things are of course different - that's why I mentioned that there could be exceptional cases - in such areas I'm however anyhow not concerned about abuse.

 

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

 

To me, that makes sense that we actually need a health score, and there will be less abuse to us that use bad form by reporting problem caches and placing our own. Sad state of affairs it is.

[cezanne]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

Yes, I understand. The human geocache reviewer in most cases is not part of the local community however and cases like I mentioned before like if someone just wants to get rid of an unloved puzzle cache or long multi cache to be allowed to place an own cache are among those which I have in mind.

 

It might be that the fact that apparently only a tiny fraction of your cache finds are multi caches and mystery caches makes it hard for your to understand part of my concerns.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

 

No, I did not label anyone as bad geocacher. It's always a good thing to report problems. I still think that if possible it is better if a NA log comes from a different person than the one who wishes to place a new cache.

 

To me, that makes sense that we actually need a health score, and there will be less abuse to us that use bad form by reporting problem caches and placing our own. Sad state of affairs it is.

 

You do not seem to get my main point. It was not about whether or not we need a health score and it was definitely not about discouraging someone to report a problem with a cache. Filing a NA log with the motivation to place a new cache is however something which is potentially problematic. This does not mean that it actually causes a problem in every case.

Edited February 28, 2017 by cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

No, I don't get your point. I don't understand why you think it bad form to post a needed NA and then place my own cache there when the location is available. I don't understand the abuse of filing a NA that you mention. Again, the NA alerts both the CO and the local reviewer, so where is this abuse to want to hide a new cache?

[+dprovan]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

It doesn't make you a bad geocacher, but a bad geocacher intent on abusing the system could use exactly the same approach to get the reviewer to archive a cache that didn't actually have any problems. I don't know if you care what other people in the community think of you, but those who do care will be careful to make the archival case clearly presented and well supported by other opinions. I don't think it's a requirement, but an obvious way to avoid any question of duplicity would be to focus on archiving the cache and then leave it to someone else to use the newly opened spot for a new cache.

 

If everyone can see that the old cache is defunct, then this isn't a problem. It becomes a concern when the only information about the cache's problems is coming from a single source, and that source then takes advantage of the result.

[+Team Microdot]

The problem of abandoned caches is very real. Definitely not imaginary.

You imagine a problem, but the community that sees those abandoned caches does not since they haven't done anything about them.

 

Not doing something about a problem does not equate to not seeing a problem. That's flawed logic.

 

I am yet to do anything about the election of a reality TV star to the presidency of the USA - but I am aware that there have been a number of problems arising from it (although you might argue that I've imagined them).

 

You see abandoned caches as a general problem with geocaching, but I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

 

I'm genuinely happy for you on that score and I wish things were the same in my part of the world.

 

If I were a gambling man I'd probably wager that as app use becomes more prevalent in geocaching that Groundspeak have noticed the shape of the community changing - and recognised that different systems are needed to cater for this evolution.

I won't take that bet, but I think it's sad to watch geocaching change from a system based on cooperation within the local community to one where everything's dictated by the central authority.

 

I heartily agree with this sentiment. When I first learned about geocaching it sounded like a passtime with a strong cooperative community spirit with high aspirations and standards. There are some parity differences between my early expectations and my later experiences.

[+justintim1999]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

It doesn't make you a bad geocacher, but a bad geocacher intent on abusing the system could use exactly the same approach to get the reviewer to archive a cache that didn't actually have any problems. I don't know if you care what other people in the community think of you, but those who do care will be careful to make the archival case clearly presented and well supported by other opinions. I don't think it's a requirement, but an obvious way to avoid any question of duplicity would be to focus on archiving the cache and then leave it to someone else to use the newly opened spot for a new cache.

 

If everyone can see that the old cache is defunct, then this isn't a problem. It becomes a concern when the only information about the cache's problems is coming from a single source, and that source then takes advantage of the result.

 

How can you take advantage of an active cache owner?

[+L0ne.R]

Moreover, as I said it's usually not a problem to have the NA log filed by another person (stress on person, not another account).

 

Maybe more people in Europe are willing to log NAs. In many places in North America there are only a handful of people willing. A cache could go years before someone else will stick their neck out and post an NA.

Edited February 28, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+L0ne.R]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

It doesn't make you a bad geocacher, but a bad geocacher intent on abusing the system could use exactly the same approach to get the reviewer to archive a cache that didn't actually have any problems.

 

It would have one important problem. No active owner. A game that promotes abandonment sets a bad example. Where's the integrity? Where's the responsible ethos?

[+Team Microdot]

in most areas it is no problem at all if a different cacher files the NA than the one who hides a new cache.

 

It is not a problem at all if the one who hides a new cache is the same cacher who files the NA.

[+Team Microdot]

You do not seem to get my main point. It was not about whether or not we need a health score and it was definitely not about discouraging someone to report a problem with a cache. Filing a NA log with the motivation to place a new cache is however something which is potentially problematic. This does not mean that it actually causes a problem in every case.

 

If people don't seem to be getting your main point - whatever that is - it could be that you're making it badly.

 

Suggesting that your opinion is in some way special because you've found more multi or mystery caches than another poster probably doesn't help and in fact I would go so far as to say has no relevance whatsoever.

 

If you don't like the idea that a person can NA a cache and then place their own in the same spot then fine - but there's fundamentally nothing wrong with it as default mechanisms ensure that the interests of the existing CO are given full consideration and appropriate support.

[+L0ne.R]

I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

 

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

Looking at the first 5:

Bushwacked Again - the owner hasn't logged in since March 2016. There are 4 NMs on the cache.

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

C Monster - 3 NMs, cache broken and contents scattered - owner hasn't logged in since January 2015

Ivy Skirt - 2 NMs, sopping wet, owner last logged in since September 2016

CITO - recent NM, owner active and maintains

[+Team Microdot]

I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

 

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

Looking at the first 5:

Bushwacked Again - the owner hasn't logged in since March 2016. There are 4 NMs on the cache.

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

C Monster - 3 NMs, cache broken and contents scattered - owner hasn't logged in since January 2015

Ivy Skirt - 2 NMs, sopping wet, owner last logged in since September 2016

CITO - recent NM, owner active and maintains

 

Yeah - but if you don't see them then they don't exist

[cezanne]

in most areas it is no problem at all if a different cacher files the NA than the one who hides a new cache.

 

It is not a problem at all if the one who hides a new cache is the same cacher who files the NA.

 

It can be a problem for various reasons. This person could for example sabotage an unloved multi cache or mystery cache to be able to hide a cache of their own.

 

Moreover, in case of still reachable owners adoption or working out a way that the owners get the caches maintained themselves can be preferable to a new cache.

If someone just needs a place to hide a cache their motivation to try to help towards prolonging the life cycle of a well established cache will be almost non existent.

 

When the owner of a cache that I regard as valuable is still reachable, my foremost priority in most cases is to try motivating the owner to maintain the cache or to adopt it out.

 

The wish to get a hiding spot is not a good guide in my opinion.

[+Manville Possum]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

It doesn't make you a bad geocacher, but a bad geocacher intent on abusing the system could use exactly the same approach to get the reviewer to archive a cache that didn't actually have any problems.

 

I don't agree. I have never seen a cache that did not have any problems archived by a volunteer reviewer with the exception to make room for a GeoTour. I see ownerless caches being propped up by the community as a problem. Throwdowns have harmed the game for me, taking up space from active members.

[+dprovan]

It would have one important problem. No active owner. A game that promotes abandonment sets a bad example. Where's the integrity? Where's the responsible ethos?

I don't understand. The existing system is ideal for dealing with caches with no active owner. NM, NA, gone. How can you say a design like that promotes abandonment? All this stuff about people being afraid of the CO's reaction literally disappears when the cache has been abandoned.

[+fizzymagic]

I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

 

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

Looking at the first 5:

Bushwacked Again - the owner hasn't logged in since March 2016. There are 4 NMs on the cache.

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

C Monster - 3 NMs, cache broken and contents scattered - owner hasn't logged in since January 2015

Ivy Skirt - 2 NMs, sopping wet, owner last logged in since September 2016

CITO - recent NM, owner active and maintains

 

You find what you look for. If you are focused on the bad, you will tend to find it. I can't imagine continuing an activity that generates as much pain for me as geocaching seems to for you.

[+dprovan]

You do understand that posting a NA alerts a real human geocache reviewer, so I'm not understanding the potential abuse that you mention.

 

You made it sound as if I'm a bad geocacher or that I use bad form for reporting problems with a geocache and then placing one of my own there after it is archived.

It doesn't make you a bad geocacher, but a bad geocacher intent on abusing the system could use exactly the same approach to get the reviewer to archive a cache that didn't actually have any problems.

I don't agree. I have never seen a cache that did not have any problems archived by a volunteer reviewer with the exception to make room for a GeoTour.

I wouldn't know whether such a malcreant could get away with it, but someone with honorable intentions can easily avoid putting the reviewer in the position of having to judge.

 

I see ownerless caches being propped up by the community as a problem. Throwdowns have harmed the game for me, taking up space from active members.

How does the health score help defend against throwdowns? Part of my thinking is that a community can reach a consensus to act against a bad cache being propped up by throwdowns, but its tiptop health score could keep it active forever if the community based approach is de-emphasized.

[+Manville Possum]

I wouldn't know whether such a malcreant could get away with it, but someone with honorable intentions can easily avoid putting the reviewer in the position of having to judge.

 

Reporting a geocache listing that has a issue is not "putting the reviewer in the position of having to judge." It's part of what they volunteered to do.

[+Team Microdot]

in most areas it is no problem at all if a different cacher files the NA than the one who hides a new cache.

 

It is not a problem at all if the one who hides a new cache is the same cacher who files the NA.

 

It can be a problem for various reasons. This person could for example sabotage an unloved multi cache or mystery cache to be able to hide a cache of their own.

 

Moreover, in case of still reachable owners adoption or working out a way that the owners get the caches maintained themselves can be preferable to a new cache.

If someone just needs a place to hide a cache their motivation to try to help towards prolonging the life cycle of a well established cache will be almost non existent.

 

When the owner of a cache that I regard as valuable is still reachable, my foremost priority in most cases is to try motivating the owner to maintain the cache or to adopt it out.

 

The wish to get a hiding spot is not a good guide in my opinion.

 

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

 

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

 

It's worth noting too that arbitrarily insisting that whoever ultimately ends up with a spot must not be the person who posted NA on the cache that occupied that spot previously would do absolutely nothing to prevent the sabotage you seem to imagine is going on.

[+Team Microdot]

You find what you look for.

 

Yup. When it's there to find that's what usually happens

[cezanne]

If people don't seem to be getting your main point - whatever that is - it could be that you're making it badly.

 

That not only could be but is likely to be the case.

 

Suggesting that your opinion is in some way special because you've found more multi or mystery caches than another poster probably doesn't help and in fact I would go so far as to say has no relevance whatsoever.

 

It is of relevance for what I tried to explain but apparently failed to do. I did not mention this aspect to suggest that my caching style is in any way superior or better to someone's else. I mentioned it because I thought that my concern for more complex caches is difficult to understand from a perspective of someone with very different geocaching experiences.

I have experienced many times before that many people cannot understand my stances, issues, problems etc when it comes to different aspects of geocaching when their own experiences and their own caching environment is very different from mine. For example, most cachers who have never been out with me do not understand why T-ratings are more important for me than for most of my fellow cachers in my area.

 

 

I do care about properly maintained caches, but I also care a lot about doing whatever can be done in my area to try to extend the life cycle of caches that I consider as worthy which includes trying to keep

up the motivation of owners of old caches to keep their caches and fix issues or to adopt them out whenever this is an option for them.

 

This also implies that I'm inclined to first try other avenues than NA logs and only resort to NA logs if the former attempts do not work out.

 

If the reason for a NA log is that someone wants to place their own cache, this is introducing a bias which I would prefer if it did not exist. This is not saying that this is a must condition as you phrased it.

The key interest when to comes to a cache in bad condition in my opinion should be to avoid that future finders are confronted with the reported issues and not that the old cache gets archived. The first preference for a reasonable cache should be that it gets fixed (of course not by a throwdown).

 

 

If you don't like the idea that a person can NA a cache and then place their own in the same spot then fine - but there's fundamentally nothing wrong with it as default mechanisms ensure that the interests of the existing CO are given full consideration and appropriate support.

 

I did not say that I do not like the idea that a person *can* do that. I said that I would not recommend it that way and that I regard it as bad style. That's something very different. I would not be in favour of a rule choice or not even a recommendation offered by Groundspeak stating that different people should be involved.

Edited February 28, 2017 by cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

It's tough enough to post a NA now, and that get's the stink eye. So now if we post NA on a cache and then hide one of our own, we are in bad form for keeping geocaching alive with new listings? And calling a reviewer's attention to a problem cache is putting them in a position?

 

I just thing geocaching could improve with new listings, and the community just propping up old junk keeps geocaching on the soggy paper trail of ownerless geocaches.

[cezanne]

It's tough enough to post a NA now, and that get's the stink eye. So now if we post NA on a cache and then hide one of our own, we are in bad form for keeping geocaching alive with new listings?

 

There are different ways to keep geocaching alive depending on what one wants to achieve.

It typically involves more energy, effort and time to work out a solution that extends the life cycle of a cache that warrants it than to initiate that such a cache gets archived quickly even if there would exist other options than archival and the cache staying as junk.

 

I just thing geocaching could improve with new listings, and the community just propping up old junk keeps geocaching on the soggy paper trail of ownerless geocaches.

 

I never welcomed if the community props up junky ownerless caches. I do not think however that a new listing per se improves geocaching and I have encountered many cases where putting effort in keeping the old cache alive (in a good state of course and with an owner that reacts) would have provided the much better outcome than a new listing.

 

It's not my main objective just to end up with new caches that I could log finds on. I prefer if a nice cache I have already found survives and is available to be found by new(er) caches so that they can experience a different world of geocaching than just quick traditionals.

[+barefootjeff]

It's tough enough to post a NA now, and that get's the stink eye. So now if we post NA on a cache and then hide one of our own, we are in bad form for keeping geocaching alive with new listings?

 

There are different ways to keep geocaching alive depending on what one wants to achieve.

It typically involves more energy, effort and time to work out a solution that extends the life cycle of a cache that warrants it than to initiate that such a cache gets archived quickly even if there would exist other options than archival and the cache staying as junk.

 

I just thing geocaching could improve with new listings, and the community just propping up old junk keeps geocaching on the soggy paper trail of ownerless geocaches.

 

I never welcomed if the community props up junky ownerless caches. I do not think however that a new listing per se improves geocaching and I have encountered many cases where putting effort in keeping the old cache alive (in a good state of course and with an owner that reacts) would have provided the much better outcome than a new listing.

 

It's not my main objective just to end up with new caches that I could log finds on. I prefer if a nice cache I have already found survives and is available to be found by new(er) caches so that they can experience a different world of geocaching than just quick traditionals.

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

[cezanne]

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

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

[+dprovan]

I see almost no abandoned caches in my area, so I know they aren't inherent.

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

As I've said often in the forums, people in my area post NMs, so one would expect to see some red wrenches. Looks like about 8% of caches are marked for maintenance, maybe a little higher than I would want in an active community, but close enough.

 

Looking at the first 5:

Bushwacked Again - the owner hasn't logged in since March 2016. There are 4 NMs on the cache.

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

C Monster - 3 NMs, cache broken and contents scattered - owner hasn't logged in since January 2015

Ivy Skirt - 2 NMs, sopping wet, owner last logged in since September 2016

CITO - recent NM, owner active and maintains

Until now, I thought if I looked at the abandoned caches people want so badly to get rid of, I'd find entire parks made useless by a bunch of non-existent caches. But now that you've listed 5 problem caches in my area, I understand that the caches you're talking about aren't causing problems, they just aren't living up to your standards, and you want your standards enforced even though the community accepts those caches. No wonder my talk about community is ignored: the problem isn't that the communities aren't doing what they should, the problem is that the communities aren't doing what you think they should. And, wow, now I realize why I got so much push-back when I suggested a second opinion.

 

I don't know what airport you're talking about, but you did nail my area: as it happens, all 5 of those caches are close enough to me that I actively monitor their logs, and I see nothing to be worried about here. One cache has had chronic problems for years, but we love it, so we forgive it. Why's that bad? Two of them are currently underwater. We'll see what happens when the floods of spring recede. One cache literally has no problem other than an obsolete wrench. In short, a community maintaining it's caches, while you suggest mechanisms that would help outsiders such as yourself override my community's decisions.

[+dprovan]

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

Then the community gets what it wants. Who are you to say they should want something else?