Geocache Health Score

[cezanne]

Do you really think this will result in hiking caches being archived?

 

Yes if implemented that way (not necessarily by the reviewers, often by the cache owners) and in the long run it will also further decrease the number of newly hidden such caches.

 

While there might exist workarounds not every cache hider wishes to deal with this sort of fuss.

[+Manville Possum]

While there might exist workarounds not every cache hider wishes to deal with this sort of fuss.

 

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

 

I'm not interested in hiding any more caches, I started playing the go out and seek part of this game. And truthfully, I don't enjoy finding caches that lack owner maintenance and wish there was some kind of health score to weed out the propped up junk.

Right now the system I'm using is only seek caches from owners of good reputation.

[+justintim1999]

Do you really think this will result in hiking caches being archived?

 

Yes if implemented that way (not necessarily by the reviewers, often by the cache owners) and in the long run it will also further decrease the number of newly hidden such caches.

 

While there might exist workarounds not every cache hider wishes to deal with this sort of fuss.

 

If that's the way you feel...

 

So it shall be written, so it shall be done!"

[cezanne]

While there might exist workarounds not every cache hider wishes to deal with this sort of fuss.

 

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

 

It will weed out many others.

 

Take for example myself. I think I have proved that up to now I have been willing to maintain my caches.

I contact every single cacher who logs a DNF for my one of my caches and I often also ask finders for more details on the condition of my caches.

 

If I find out that a cacher has not even been at the right place but 1km from my final, then a DNF or 10 DNFs for a group of 10 people are completely harmless.

There is no maintenance need. I'm willing to maintain my active caches but I'm not willing to deal with the negative effects of silly algorithms for which I have no demand.

 

And truthfully, I don't enjoy finding caches that lack owner maintenance and wish there was some kind of health score to weed out the propped up junk.

 

I rather think that the system will weed out more jewels than junk.

 

DNFs for example for more complex or remote caches are posted in good faith and might lead to perfectly well maintained caches being affected.

 

Many caches with problems will not be affected, at least not in my area. There are many caches out there where there is no container any longer and which are not disabled and are not flagged by NM or NA logs.

The finders go there and log a found it after getting a log permission by the cache owners which still react to e-mails.

Typically it happens for caches I have found long ago and so I will not interfere. I just happen to become aware of such incidents when looking through logs of some cachers in my area.

 

GS's algorithm will never identify those caches.

 

Right now the system I'm using is only seek caches from owners of good reputation.

 

I'm sure that this approach works much better and has no negative effects.

[+dprovan]

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

We don't have these issues in my area. If they are a problem in your area, that seems like the problem that you should worry about. In particular, if NMs and NAs posted by other members of the community cause so much angst, I would worry they'll cause even more trouble when cast down from on-high.

 

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

I promise I will do that. Now, if you don't mind, don't yourself forget that out-of-touch control by a central authority starts by deciding that interaction between individuals doesn't work. There's a place for universal standards, but there's also a danger that a strong central authority will be used mainly by well meaning people to dictate their preferences on everyone else.

 

Is everyone on this forum paranoid?

No, apparently it's mainly just me that's paranoid. Both in the forums and in real life where, here in the US, the two parties are both determined to have a country dictated by a central authority, but then both spend most of their time crying about it when they don't control that central authority.

 

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

Yes, I really think this will endanger hiking caches. It's not something individual cache owners and reviewers will be able to stop. This isn't about what happens in specific cases, but about how the attitude discourages that type of cache and that kind of caching. The basic thrust behind rating cache health is that caches are disposable, so if a cache has a problem -- or might have a problem -- it's important to get it out of the way so something new can takes it place. That thinking makes little sense in the back country.

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

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

 

You expect to be taken seriously when you claim that a system which allows a festering box of filth to remain as a live cache for two years is a system that's working perfectly That's priceless It would appear that your idea of perfect is way, way below mine.

 

With respect - then what should it be sensitive to?

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

 

I have no idea why you think the community isn't fit to identify bad caches

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think just increase the thresholds for DNFs.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

By logging correctly I mean posting a DNF log if the cache can't be found. A cache with a high D rating isn't a problem if it has a lot of DNFs. A cache with a high D rating *should* have a lot of DNFs and may have nothing to do with the health of the cache.

[+Manville Possum]

Yes, I really think this will endanger hiking caches. It's not something individual cache owners and reviewers will be able to stop. This isn't about what happens in specific cases, but about how the attitude discourages that type of cache and that kind of caching. The basic thrust behind rating cache health is that caches are disposable, so if a cache has a problem -- or might have a problem -- it's important to get it out of the way so something new can takes it place. That thinking makes little sense in the back country.

 

A couple of my back country caches that get few visits were Temporarily Disabled on 02/17/2015 by a reviewer and this was the reason given:

"This cache came up for review while going through all the ones that have not been found for over 2 years with a DNF log".

 

I did find it upsetting, but I survived it and so did my geocaches.

 

I like to think that the company knows best when it comes to selling geocaching.

[+dprovan]

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

Since this is a big part of my problem, I'm wondering if you really mean this. I have a specific cacher in mind that I don't think expects to maintain his caches. I've found more of his caches than anyone else, and I've had far fewer problems with them having maintenance issues. There are several reasons why his caches don't often have problems, but a big one is precisely because he doesn't expect to maintain them, so he makes sure to use quality containers hidden in ways to avoid typical problems.

 

When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want his CO to be weeded out? The reason I ask is that he's one of the most respected COs in my area, so I'd hate to think that you being successful would wipe out those caches from my community.

[+Team Microdot]

I contact every single cacher who logs a DNF for my one of my caches and I often also ask finders for more details on the condition of my caches.

 

And you view the idea of a rare automated email from Groundspeak as too much fuss?

[+Manville Possum]

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

Since this is a big part of my problem, I'm wondering if you really mean this. I have a specific cacher in mind that I don't think expects to maintain his caches. I've found more of his caches than anyone else, and I've had far fewer problems with them having maintenance issues. There are several reasons why his caches don't often have problems, but a big one is precisely because he doesn't expect to maintain them, so he makes sure to use quality containers hidden in ways to avoid typical problems.

 

When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want his CO to be weeded out? The reason I ask is that he's one of the most respected COs in my area, so I'd hate to think that you being successful would wipe out those caches from my community.

 

You are making up stuff, no truth in it, so quit attempting wherever you are going with that junk.

[+dprovan]

You expect to be taken seriously when you claim that a system which allows a festering box of filth to remain as a live cache for two years is a system that's working perfectly That's priceless It would appear that your idea of perfect is way, way below mine.

The local geocachers allowed that. The system, as you yourself pointed out, worked as it should once the people involved decided to play their part.

 

I have no idea why you think the community isn't fit to identify bad caches

Me? I think the community's perfectly fit. I'm not the one saying we need a health score calculated by GS to identify bad caches.

 

[ Edited to fix quoting error. Thanks, Team Microdot! ]

Edited March 1, 2017 by dprovan

[+Team Microdot]

You expect to be taken seriously when you claim that a system which allows a festering box of filth to remain as a live cache for two years is a system that's working perfectly That's priceless It would appear that your idea of perfect is way, way below mine.

The local geocachers allowed that. The system, as you yourself pointed out, worked as it should once the people involved decided to play their part.

 

The local geocachers are part of the system. You need to think holistically

 

I have no idea why you think the community isn't fit to identify bad caches

Me? I think the community's perfectly fit. I'm not the one saying we need a health score calculated by GS to identify bad caches.

 

I've fixed your quoting error for you.

 

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

 

We don't need a calculated health score to identify bad caches but having one will make that identification explicit in a way that facilitates useful actions by automated systems.

[+dprovan]

You are making up stuff, no truth in it, so quit attempting wherever you are going with that junk.

I thought it was a very simple question, and I was sure it was going to clear up a lot of issues, so I'm surprised and disappointed to get an angry non-response. This is a very real geocacher. You probably know his name. The key is that even though he doesn't expect to maintain his caches, but he does still accept full responsibility for the quality of his caches. Is the end result good enough, or do you really demand a specific attitude?

[+barefootjeff]

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.

The email sent to me came three days after a single DNF was logged on a cache that was only seven weeks old and had had one previous find. The searcher was put off my the presence of muggles near GZ and was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

So what wasn't "quite right" with the cache and what was it I should've addressed that I hadn't?

 

Why, oh why, does everyone think DNF = cache missing or misplaced? The DNF log is a terrible metric for cache health. Even a bunch of DNFs might just mean a group of people out caching together made the same mistake, or gave up when it started to rain. A few years back I had a string of 4 back-to-back DNFs over several weeks on one of my caches. The cache was fine, but it was a tricky one to find (D2.5) and it was just a statistical anomaly that those 4 people didn't find it in succession. None of the DNFs I've had over four years across my 26 hides has been because of a cache problem.

 

I'm also curious why NA logs should come into the cache health score. As soon as one of these is logged, the cache's fate is in the hands of a reviewer. If it's upheld, the cache is disabled and the CO is given 30 days in which to address the issue, and that in itself generates an email to the CO. If the NA is dismissed by the reviewer, then it should carry no weight at all. Any emails or other action from the cache health bot are superfluous for NA logs.

[+Manville Possum]

You are making up stuff, no truth in it, so quit attempting wherever you are going with that junk.

I thought it was a very simple question, and I was sure it was going to clear up a lot of issues,

 

That was not a question. You can't post things that I did not say and call them a question.

[+dprovan]

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed.

[+L0ne.R]

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

 

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

 

I can understand--especially if those cachers meet-up with other cachers - events, group caching, bump in to cachers on the trail. It can make for an awkward encounter. Not just with active delinquent owners but with those people who prop up caches, and believe any one who posts NM/NAs butts their nose in where it doesn't belong and is a cache cop.

[+dprovan]

That was not a question. You can't post things that I did not say and call them a question.

You seem to have lost the conversation. The simple question I asked was, "When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want this CO to be weeded out?"

[+Team Microdot]

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed.

 

Again, you need to think holistically and when you do and you remember that those people are part of the system you'll see that the system failed.

[cezanne]

I contact every single cacher who logs a DNF for my one of my caches and I often also ask finders for more details on the condition of my caches.

 

And you view the idea of a rare automated email from Groundspeak as too much fuss?

 

Not the e-mail in itself, but its contents (and in particular the way how it is formulated) and the reasons such e-mails are triggered (which will make DNF logs and DNF loggers even more unpopular).

Moreover along the lines of what dprovan wrote I'm also thinking some steps ahead of what currently exists as this kind of health score system will not solve some of the systematic issues which come from the stance of many cachers and instead of accepting that GS will likely proceed on their way trying to automate what cannot be automated.

[+Team Microdot]

Why, oh why, does everyone think DNF = cache missing or misplaced? The DNF log is a terrible metric for cache health. Even a bunch of DNFs might just mean a group of people out caching together made the same mistake, or gave up when it started to rain. A few years back I had a string of 4 back-to-back DNFs over several weeks on one of my caches. The cache was fine, but it was a tricky one to find (D2.5) and it was just a statistical anomaly that those 4 people didn't find it in succession. None of the DNFs I've had over four years across my 26 hides has been because of a cache problem.

 

This is why I think that any decent system reliant on algorithms needs to weight DNF 'scores' according to the Found:DNF ratio of the cacher posting the DNF log.

 

I'm also curious why NA logs should come into the cache health score. As soon as one of these is logged, the cache's fate is in the hands of a reviewer. If it's upheld, the cache is disabled and the CO is given 30 days in which to address the issue, and that in itself generates an email to the CO. If the NA is dismissed by the reviewer, then it should carry no weight at all. Any emails or other action from the cache health bot are superfluous for NA logs.

 

Agreed.

 

I envisage the reviewer's dismissal of the NA log awarding a beneficial health score equal to or greate than the detrimental score arising from the original NA.

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

Since this is a big part of my problem, I'm wondering if you really mean this. I have a specific cacher in mind that I don't think expects to maintain his caches. I've found more of his caches than anyone else, and I've had far fewer problems with them having maintenance issues. There are several reasons why his caches don't often have problems, but a big one is precisely because he doesn't expect to maintain them, so he makes sure to use quality containers hidden in ways to avoid typical problems.

 

When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want his CO to be weeded out? The reason I ask is that he's one of the most respected COs in my area, so I'd hate to think that you being successful would wipe out those caches from my community.

 

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

[cezanne]

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed.

 

Again, you need to think holistically and when you do and you remember that those people are part of the system you'll see that the system failed.

 

One can interpret holistically in different ways. In many communities the community right now gets exactly what they want. A problem cache is only a problem cache if cachers regard it as problematic enough to report it with the means that are available (which also includes mails to the reviewers). I do not think that the main reason not many NA logs are written is a concern for being called cache cop but rather that for many cachers (in my area most) a cache that can be logged as find is more valuable as an archived cache. It's also amusing to see how many cachers rush out for a cache in terrible condition if they realize that there is a danger that the cache gets archived. They are not thinking along the lines "I'm looking forward that the cache gets archived soon and I do not waste my time to visit that cache. They visit the cache on purpose quickly in order to still be able to log a find."

[+thebruce0]

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

Well, no, it's a Health Score. It's being used to trigger e-mails -- not "reminders" since the complaint is that it sends e-mails even when there's nothing wrong

Semantics, you know what I'm saying. The intent of the message has no tangible outcome - the recipient can read it, and do nothing, without direct automated consequence. It's a passive email:

- a "reminder" for a CO who knows something needs to be done

- an "alert" for a CO who didn't know something needs to be done

- an "annoyance" for a CO who knows there's nothing needing to be done

 

but I'm more concerned with the concept behind it than any effects. Now it's used to send e-mails, but what will it be used for next?

enh, you could say that for anything really. That's a reaching "what if". What if the reviewers were given higher power they don't have now? What if a NA caused automatic archival in 1 week? We can come up with any 'what if' for some new capability taken to the extreme. This is a function that perhaps might make it easier to develop some form of a consequence tool in the future, but right now that's not the case. If it gets to that point, then we can deal with it. It's not even a step towards there, because again, the email itself does nothing, and there's no indication it's going to be used for what some people fear.

 

When "old timers" complain about hiking caches disappearing, I often question whether that's true, so the thing I worry about the most is that this shifts the focus in a way that works against those caches. Until now, a cache's fate is based on its interaction with seekers, so a seldom visited cache will be fine for long periods, and that's appropriate because seldom visited have correspondingly fewer problems. The health score turns this around so all caches get the same attention regardless of how infrequently anyone notices them.

There's no 'attention' here except for the CO. There's no difference. No one but the CO receives the notification. If they ignore it, and there's not a problem, then they might get the "annoying" email what, once or twice a month? That's hardly even an occasional spam. Sure, if that's a legitimate concern (receiving annoying spam), then it's something that could be addressed. But that's different than being worried about cache status because these automatic emails are going out.

 

No more attention is being drawn to these good caches of concern because of the email. Only the CO's.

 

We can adjust the algorithm, but we can't change the fact that this means the system itself is now responsible for ferreting out bad caches. I don't see how we can avoid this hurting those hiking caches that I always assure the old timers there are still plenty of.

Again, how is the CO receiving the email hurting a good hiking cache? I fail to see tangible evidence of this... but maybe I'm just missing something in this automated email system.

[+thebruce0]

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

 

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

 

And again, an email ignored doesn't raise concern about the cache's eventual outcome.

 

IF at some point the cache status is raised to the reviewer, it now has a human judge - a case can be made for it to remain active, despite the owner being awol. Convince the reviewer. This is the way things are now. The email has no direct effect on such caches.

[+L0ne.R]

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed.

 

Intimidation or perceived intimidation--or a sense of just wanting to get along without rocking the boat--doesn't make for a healthy happy community that feel abandoned junk caches are just fine and dandy.

[+barefootjeff]

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

Since this is a big part of my problem, I'm wondering if you really mean this. I have a specific cacher in mind that I don't think expects to maintain his caches. I've found more of his caches than anyone else, and I've had far fewer problems with them having maintenance issues. There are several reasons why his caches don't often have problems, but a big one is precisely because he doesn't expect to maintain them, so he makes sure to use quality containers hidden in ways to avoid typical problems.

 

When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want his CO to be weeded out? The reason I ask is that he's one of the most respected COs in my area, so I'd hate to think that you being successful would wipe out those caches from my community.

 

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

But he will get DNFs, if there's muggles about or if the weather suddenly turns bad or if someone just looks in the wrong place. A DNF does NOT mean maintenance is needed!

[+Manville Possum]

That was not a question. You can't post things that I did not say and call them a question.

You seem to have lost the conversation. The simple question I asked was, "When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want this CO to be weeded out?"

 

Do I want who weeded out? I have no idea what you are talking about, but felt if you were attempting to twist my words.

 

I have no problem expressing myself, so this "is this what you really mean" and coming up with your own idea was insulting to me.

[+Team Microdot]

But you are the one saying that two year old boxes of filth being live caches are an indicator of a perfect system - which is why I can't take you seriously.

The goal of the system is to allow people impacted by bad caches to eliminated them when they want to. A bad cache tells us that, for whatever reason, they didn't want to, not that the system failed.

 

Again, you need to think holistically and when you do and you remember that those people are part of the system you'll see that the system failed.

 

One can interpret holistically in different ways. In many communities the community right now gets exactly what they want. A problem cache is only a problem cache if cachers regard it as problematic enough to report it with the means that are available (which also includes mails to the reviewers). I do not think that the main reason not many NA logs are written is a concern for being called cache cop but rather that for many cachers (in my area most) a cache that can be logged as find is more valuable as an archived cache. It's also amusing to see how many cachers rush out for a cache in terrible condition if they realize that there is a danger that the cache gets archived. They are not thinking along the lines "I'm looking forward that the cache gets archived soon and I do not waste my time to visit that cache. They visit the cache on purpose quickly in order to still be able to log a find."

 

We've seen time and again how some posters here can interpret a single word in myriad different ways simply to suit their purpose at that particular moment. It's one of the things that often derails productive threads.

 

For the avoidance of doubt the following definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is a good fit for the sense in which I'm using the term:

 

Characterized by the belief that the parts of something are intimately interconnected and explicable only by reference to the whole.

 

I can see and even understand perfectly well that having expended effort with the goal in mind, people are very keen to get their smiley - that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

Some of those individuals will go on to log an Needs Maintenance because, well, the cache needs maintenance - that's good

 

There does seem though to be genuine reluctance to go the extra mile and be the person to pull the NA trigger. I don't believe though that this has anything at all to do with smileys because by this point this person already has their smiley - so there must be some other reason why they can't quite bring themselves to pull the trigger.

 

I personally wouldn't rush out to log a find on a box of filth that used to be a cache just because it was about to be archived. I actually would be glad to see that box of filth removed from the map and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep from the loss of that particular smiley - and I don't think I know anyone who would.

[+L0ne.R]

Maybe this will help weed out those that just place a geocache and expect not to have to maintain them?

Since this is a big part of my problem, I'm wondering if you really mean this. I have a specific cacher in mind that I don't think expects to maintain his caches. I've found more of his caches than anyone else, and I've had far fewer problems with them having maintenance issues. There are several reasons why his caches don't often have problems, but a big one is precisely because he doesn't expect to maintain them, so he makes sure to use quality containers hidden in ways to avoid typical problems.

 

When you say you want to weed out COs that expect not to have to maintain their caches, does that mean you want his CO to be weeded out? The reason I ask is that he's one of the most respected COs in my area, so I'd hate to think that you being successful would wipe out those caches from my community.

 

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

But he will get DNFs, if there's muggles about or if the weather suddenly turns bad or if someone just looks in the wrong place. A DNF does NOT mean maintenance is needed!

 

Huh? A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone (the finder leaves a good description of where they looked), warrants a look. But generally 1 dnf does not need maintenance and will not get a cache archived by the reviewer. Let's hope the guy who doesn't maintain his caches, at least maintains his listing and archives his caches if they appear to be missing. Or does he leave archival up to the reviewer too?

 

 

[+niraD]

Again, how is the CO receiving the email hurting a good hiking cache?

My understanding is that the email gives the CO three options:

1. visit the cache, fix the problem, and post an Owner Maintenance log;
   
2. temporarily disable the cache until you can do option 1; or
   
3. archive the cache.
   

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

[+niraD]

A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone (the finder leaves a good description of where they looked), warrants a look.

Wait... Is that the definition of a "real" DNF now?

 

I thought a DNF merely meant that "you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it". Silly me...

[+Manville Possum]

 

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

 

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time. It will weed out ownerless listings with DNF's or NM.

[+dprovan]

Again, you need to think holistically and when you do and you remember that those people are part of the system you'll see that the system failed.

Again, it depends on what you consider the system's goal to be. You think the goal is not to allow bad caches to exist. I think it's to get rid of caches that are no longer wanted.

[cezanne]

A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone

 

All my DNFs are real and the chance that the cache is gone is small.

 

(the finder leaves a good description of where they looked),

 

I intentionally do not leave a good description of where I looked. If I'm concerned about a cache, I might inform the cache owner where I looked and of course I would reply to questions of the cache owner.

[+dprovan]

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

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

[+L0ne.R]

A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone (the finder leaves a good description of where they looked), warrants a look.

Wait... Is that the definition of a "real" DNF now?

 

I thought a DNF merely meant that "you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it". Silly me...

 

Semantics....you know what I mean. A DNF posted because there's a good chance, given the finder's description that the cache could actually be missing. There have been a few times that one DNF on one of our caches was 'real' in the sense that the cache was really missing.

[cezanne]

 

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

 

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time. It will weed out ownerless listings with DNF's or NM.

 

But you probably do not see the armchair maintenance logs coming from the typical owner of the type of hiking caches

we are talking about here.

[+niraD]

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time.

Exactly. That would be an example of taking a "third option". The official email from Groundspeak did not suggest "determine that this warning is bogus and post an Owner Maintenance log (without visiting the cache) to trick the system into leaving you alone for a while" as one of the options.

[+Manville Possum]

 

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

 

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time. It will weed out ownerless listings with DNF's or NM.

 

But you probably do not see the armchair maintenance logs coming from the typical owner of the type of hiking caches

we are talking about here.

 

No, only from geocachers that are still active.

[cezanne]

A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone (the finder leaves a good description of where they looked), warrants a look.

Wait... Is that the definition of a "real" DNF now?

 

I thought a DNF merely meant that "you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it". Silly me...

 

Semantics....you know what I mean. A DNF posted because there's a good chance, given the finder's description that the cache could actually be missing. There have been a few times that one DNF on one of our caches was 'real' in the sense that the cache was really missing.

 

But that is the sort of interpretation a CO can make but no algorithm will ever be able to do.

I do not want that my at least say 95 out of 100 DNFs where everything is alright are used in an inappropriate manner.

[+thebruce0]

Again, how is the CO receiving the email hurting a good hiking cache?

My understanding is that the email gives the CO three options:

1. visit the cache, fix the problem, and post an Owner Maintenance log;
2. temporarily disable the cache until you can do option 1; or
3. archive the cache.

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

BUT, if there's no ultimatum, then they are not required choices. They are, effectually, suggestions. Strong suggestions at worst.

The implication? 'Because you've been sent this email, there is a chance that a reviewer may deem that your cache has problems. Here are your best courses of action to avoid any potential consequences if that turns out to be true...'

I haven't seen any evidence that this interpretation of the email isn't valid. Ignoring the email results in... what? If nothing, then good hiking caches are in no additional danger.

But again, maybe I'm missing something in the process.

Edited March 1, 2017 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

Semantics....you know what I mean. A DNF posted because there's a good chance, given the finder's description that the cache could actually be missing. There have been a few times that one DNF on one of our caches was 'real' in the sense that the cache was really missing.

In the context of this discussion, which is the algorithm being used to send automated official email from Groundspeak instructing the CO to either visit the cache site or archive the cache listing, I'm not sure.

 

How will the system know the difference between a "real" DNF and a "looked for it and couldn't find it" DNF?

[+Manville Possum]

I see Armchair Maintenance on caches all the time.

Exactly. That would be an example of taking a "third option". The official email from Groundspeak did not suggest "determine that this warning is bogus and post an Owner Maintenance log (without visiting the cache) to trick the system into leaving you alone for a while" as one of the options.

 

And good to go for another 2 years after another DNF?

[+barefootjeff]

A real DNF, where there's a good chance that the cache is gone (the finder leaves a good description of where they looked), warrants a look.

Wait... Is that the definition of a "real" DNF now?

 

I thought a DNF merely meant that "you looked for a geocache and you couldn't find it". Silly me...

 

Semantics....you know what I mean. A DNF posted because there's a good chance, given the finder's description that the cache could actually be missing. There have been a few times that one DNF on one of our caches was 'real' in the sense that the cache was really missing.

No, it's not semantics. This is at the core of the problem. To you, and to the cache health score algorithm, a DNF means there's likely something wrong with the cache. To me, a DNF means simply that I didn't find it. In all likelihood I was just looking in the wrong place, or I might have been put off by muggles, bad weather, a temporary road closure or whatever. Of the DNFs I've logged, only a third have turned out to have been because of a problem with the cache, and of the DNFs logged on my hides, none have been. Are these all false DNFs? Are you saying we shouldn't log DNF when we just didn't find it or were put off by other factors, especially when we're pretty sure the cache is still there, leering at us from its cunning hiding place?

[+L0ne.R]

6.4. Maintenance expectations

 

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

 

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

 

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it's not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

 

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your listing.

 

[+barefootjeff]

Again, how is the CO receiving the email hurting a good hiking cache?

My understanding is that the email gives the CO three options:

1. visit the cache, fix the problem, and post an Owner Maintenance log;
2. temporarily disable the cache until you can do option 1; or
3. archive the cache.

Given the choice between scheduling a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem or archiving the cache, are you sure that all owners of good hiking caches will either schedule a maintenance trip to fix a non-problem, or figure out that there is a third option available to them that the official email from Groundspeak did not mention?

 

To me, it doesn't seem at all far-fetched that the bogus email warnings will cause good hiking caches to be archived.

BUT, if there's no ultimatum, then they are not required choices. They are, effectually, suggestions. Strong suggestions at worst.

The implication? 'Because you've been sent this email, there is a chance that a reviewer may deem that your cache has problems. Here are your best courses of action to avoid any potential consequences if that turns out to be true...'

I haven't seen any evidence that this interpretation of the email isn't valid. Ignoring the email results in... what? If nothing, then good hiking caches are in no additional danger.

But again, maybe I'm missing something in the process.

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

 

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

[+fizzymagic]

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

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

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

 

I would characterize that as a "minor problem" cache. My response would vary based on how hard it was to get to the cache and how long it had been since the previous find. If it were accessible and recently logged, I would post a NM log and get on with my life. If it was very hard to get to, and rarely found, I'd fix it as well as I could and not post the NM log.

 

But then again, I don't spend the majority of my waking hours fretting about how well other people are maintaining their caches.

[+L0ne.R]

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

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

 

Thankfully someone eventually saw sense and pulled the NA trigger.

 

I would characterize that as a "minor problem" cache. My response would vary based on how hard it was to get to the cache and how long it had been since the previous find. If it were accessible and recently logged, I would post a NM log and get on with my life. If it was very hard to get to, and rarely found, I'd fix it as well as I could and not post the NM log.

 

But then again, I don't spend the majority of my waking hours fretting about how well other people are maintaining their caches.

 

That's why I can't travel and geocache anymore. Too many people see the above example as a "minor problem". I don't enjoy wasting time and money on beat up abandoned irresponsible junk. There's no way to weed this stuff out so those of us who want to be more selective can still enjoy the pastime, at home and when we travel.