Geocache Health Score

[+barefootjeff]

For those who think the Cache Health Score thing doesn't negatively impact the game, here's a case in point. I'm currently working through a recently-published D3/T5 cache with three waypoints requiring kayaking and some strenuous hiking, which I've done, giving me coordinates for the final which requires more kayaking and strenuous hiking. A fantastic cache, in my books, but I have an inner ear ailment that's damaged my sense of balance, making me reluctant to climb in places where overbalancing could cause serious injury, and the CO has warned me that the cache's hiding place could be difficult for me. I'll find out when I get there, but if that turns out to be the case, I would've proudly logged a DNF, as I've done in the past on a few of his caches where I haven't risked the final climb.

 

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

 

Sure, I could circumvent all this by just logging a note if I can't reach it, but that doesn't feel right either. If it's a cache I've fully attempted but couldn't sign a log, it's by definition a DNF, not a measly WN. Isn't that what DNF is supposed to mean?

[cezanne]

Sure, I could circumvent all this by just logging a note if I can't reach it, but that doesn't feel right either. If it's a cache I've fully attempted but couldn't sign a log, it's by definition a DNF, not a measly WN. Isn't that what DNF is supposed to mean?

 

I understand how you feel as my approach to logging DNFs is very similar´and I do share your concerns.

 

My personal DNF rate for caches which are fine is higher than what you described for you. A very small minority of my DNF logs is for caches that are not any longer there.

 

My DNF logs should not have any effect on any type of health score whatsoever and it would become even worse if they tried to factor in something like how many caches one has already found or for how many years one has already been into geocaching. There are some relatively new cachers with very few finds where when they log a DNF the probability that no cache is there is much higher. In my case DNF just means that I tried and failed - this includes many cases where I even saw the container or ended up at clearly wrong places in case of multi caches.

 

I definitely do not want to have to change my way of logging DNFs after so many years. It just does not feel right to me.

 

Along the same lines I also feel that health score algorithms of the type discussed here will not in the long run motivate more cachers to log NM - rather more cachers will proceed like what fizzymagic described in an attempt to not to risk that caches get lost that they rather want to have in the game. There is already too much pressure on owners of caches that are difficult to get. It's one thing that cache owners are required to maintain their caches and it's another to come up with rigorous rules and time schedules. If a remote cache that is visited say twice a year needs a new container, it does not need to be fixed immediately. One needs to think on another time line than for urban caches that get 20 visits per months and where a nano log book needs to be exchanged.

 

I would prefer a system where one can honestly log and log as it fits to one's personal geocaching philosophy without endangering other caches and without contributing indirectly to demotivating those cachers who hide cache types that one likes.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[cezanne]

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.

 

I do not think at all that the described logging approach of fizzymagic influences your caching when on travel. I'm convinced that you do not go on the type of remote caches he has mentioned when on travel. It does not even seem to me that you often go for such hikes in your home region. In addition noone is saying that there needs to be a way to select caches only on the basis of attributes. You can be sure that someone would mention the condition of the container in a case as shown in the photo also when it were the most remote cache of the world. As such caches do not receive many logs it's possible to read all the logs and then it is very easy for you to avoid such caches.

 

It is certainly harder to find out when the tenth cache out of 500 of a power series is in bad condition but then again you can avoid power series at all. Filtering them out can be tiresome except when GSAK or something of that type is used but a health score will not change that.

 

A health score will also not change that we all have different expectations on what makes up a reasonably good experience for us. For many of those who love hiking caches that are either remote or where one needs to invest many hours to finally get to the destination it is far more important that such caches exist than whether the container is in perfect condition. The alternative would ultimately be no such caches. Who then has won anything? Not even those who never would go for such caches had won anything and neither you.

 

I tried to defend some of your wishes in another discussion and also tried to come up with an idea what could help cachers like you without harming other cachers which is something which I regard as very important. While I do understand where you come from and why you are frustrated, please accept that there are many other approaches to geocaching too and that not your approach is better or more valuable than the approach of others.

[+Team Microdot]

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.

 

It's almost as though you're trying to characterize anyone who has high expectations based on the guidelines and will take appropriate steps to maintain standards in line with those guidelines as having a flawed character - which would just be silly.

 

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of

 

I highly doubt anyone at all spends the majority of their waking hours fretting about how well other people are maintaining their caches. I'm not sure what lead you to think otherwise. But just in case there is anyone out there who does, lifting the weight from their shoulders and freeing up their time for more productive pursuits could be a massive plus for an automated, algorithm based mechanism built into the geocaching.com platform.

[+redsox_mark]

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That's what I mean by make it less sensitive.

Edited March 2, 2017 by redsox_mark

[cezanne]

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

 

If some task is not ready for being automated, don't automate it.

 

If I see a cache with a single DNF, I think it could be missing. I'll look closer and read the log. If it is high difficulty, then 1 DNF doesn't say much to me, and would not put me off. If the hint says it is on the back of a sign, and there is only one sign within 500 feet, there had been many finds before without a DNF, and the DNF is from an experienced cacher, I'll think the cache is likely missing.

 

I hope you would read the logs. In my case it could be that I'm not tall enough and could not reach the cache or even could not see it. In both cases I would log a DNF. It also could be that I overlooked the cache which was easy for almost everyone else. It also could be that I made a mistake earlier and therefore not even searched at the right place and or realized mid way that my next stage coordinates or final coordinates could not be true.

It also could be that I failed to find the access to the next stage or the final and logged DNF for that reason.

It even could be that I stood in front of the container and had in my hands for more than 30 minutes but could not get to the log book. That could be for a gadget cache but it also happened for normal locks which were functional and not special tricky locks but I just was too stupid to open them as I'm not familiar with all sorts of locks and have two left hands so to say.

 

It is a very bad idea to let experience come in to the play. My DNFs should have a much lower significance than those of most cachers in my area with much less finds and considerably fewer years into geocaching.

 

 

Likewise if I see 10 straight DNFs by different people spread out over months on a cache which is low difficulty, that likely has an issue too. 10 DNFs on a a high difficulty cache with a history of many DNFs means something else.

 

A sequence of 10 DNFs spread over months for an easy cache is the only scenario where I agree with you. However that case is not too common and normally at least one NM then haws got logged.

So again why use the DNFs?

 

You can still use them on your personal level - that's perfectly ok.

You can decide to avoid a cache because it got 12 DNFs at the same day by a group of 12 people who looked at the wrong final coordinates of a multi or puzzle cache (with no checker).

You can decide to avoid a cache that got 3 DNFs in a row by me.

 

But by all means avoid to factor in such things into an algorithm which affects us all.

[+barefootjeff]

 

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.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

That's what I mean by make it less sensitive.

I'm still not clear what problem this Health Score based on DNFs and time between finds is supposed to be solving. If it's caches abandoned by owners who've left the game, they're either not going to get the email or will ignore it as they're no longer interested or bothered by any consequences.

 

If it's caches owned by active COs, surely it's better if the people on the ground who are seeing the empty space on the back of the sign to log an NM. That's what NMs are for. A DNF is not, well shouldn't be, a replacement for NM or NA, because it destroys the useful purpose that DNF logs once served, which is to say I tried to find this cache but I couldn't because of whatever the contents of the log says, be it muggles too close, bad weather, nightfall or, just perhaps, the cache is missing or misplaced. If the CO is active and responsible, they'll look at the log and decide if anything needs to be done. If the next few finders come to the same conclusion, one of them can log an NM.

 

Once an NM is logged, then action can be taken if it's not addressed in a reasonable time frame. I have no problem with the algorithm doing that, even if it's just a reminder to someone who fixed the problem but forgot to log an OM.

 

If the stigma against NMs and NAs in some places is the root cause of this Health Score thing, that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not penalising caches and COs because well-meaning cachers who couldn't find the cache for reasons unrelated to cache health logged DNFs.

[cezanne]

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of

 

I guess you are pretty much wrong. The attitude that fizzymagic described that in case of a remote cache that needs help that he would try to do his best to improve the situation and would not log NM is pretty common among early time cachers and it's definitely not due to flawed character or due to not wanting to be proud of the development of geocaching.

 

There is a difference between not being willing to maintain a cache as a cache owner and building up some expectation about response times and cache container conditions which do not make sense for the type of cache fizzymagic talked about. Back then we did not have NM logs but still things worked out reasonably and it was more common that cachers tried to help out each other because they were cache owners too. Now one group of cachers is not willing to offer a helping hand at all in trying to improve the condition of a cache and one other large group is leaving throwdowns or new log sheets just to log a find but not to be help the cache owner.

 

I'm maintaining my active caches and I expect others to do the same. However I'm also trying to help other cache owners when I can and I received support from others several times which I appreciated. In my opinion the community as a whole is winning. It's a better caching world in my opinion than if anyone is strictly restricting his/her attention to the caches owned by them or is not owning caches at all (which becomes pretty common also among those who would well be able to hide nice caches but who just do not want to be bothered).

 

As you mention character flaws: Writing a NM log for a cache that requires say a 8 hours hike back and forth and mentioning that the log book is full and doing nothing about it would seem pretty harsh and unfriendly to me. I certainly would inform the CO of the situation but not via a NM log and even less when I did nothing to remedy the situation. For me it feels like telling an old lady that she dropped some items and then moving along and not helping her to pick up the items. I'm not saying that anyone who logs NM should feel that way - I describe how it feels in certain situations to me and I do not believe that this is due to a character flaw on my side.

 

The guidelines in the form they exist now have developped over many years and they are not the result of what the community agreed upon but rather a tribute to the mass development and exponential growth with which GS tried to cope with.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+markoCR]

I have a feeling this has just been introduced to help the reviewers. I read a post written by a Spanish reviewer the other day which said that he had 500 pages of caches that needed maintenance in his area. Perhaps this system is just to help them prioritise which caches need attention first. Has anyone had a cache archived that was actually in perfectly good condition? If the system automatically archived caches once they reached a certain health score, that would be an issue. However, I'm sure reviewers use common sense when deciding whether to archive or not.

 

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

 

I don't know about other places, but where I live in Spain it's a sorry state of affairs. We get lots of people who obviously read about caching somewhere, sign up, hide a cache, and then disappear. As they aren't well hidden, they disappear within a week. So they rack up numerous DNFs, but few people post a NA (I normally end up doing it). Once it has a NA, there are certain cachers from Madrid who post a found log when they haven't been anywhere near it, knowing that will end up getting archived. Hopefully this system will stop that from happening.

[+Team Microdot]

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of

 

I guess you are pretty much wrong.

 

I'm wrong about the guidelines having arisen from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members?

[cezanne]

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of

 

I guess you are pretty much wrong.

 

I'm wrong about the guidelines having arisen from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members?

 

Many parts of the guidelines are based on what plays a role for GS.

Other parts of course relate to issues that have been brought forward by cachers but the more geocaching expanded and the more heteregenous the community became the less agreement could be reached on nearly anything.

 

You will find noone who loves remote hiking caches who will agree that such caches and urban nano caches to have an example on the other line of the scale should be subject to the same time schedule and expectation with regard to maintenance works.

[+Team Microdot]

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that the guidelines arise from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members and I don't see any of the guidelines as representative of character flaws at all - quite the opposite in fact. I see them as a natural response to the desire to be involved in a hobby with standards we can all be proud of

 

I guess you are pretty much wrong.

 

I'm wrong about the guidelines having arisen from ideas originally discussed and agreed by community members?

 

Many parts of the guidelines are based on what plays a role for GS.

Other parts of course relate to issues that have been brought forward by cachers but the more geocaching expanded and the more heteregenous the community became the less agreement could be reached on nearly anything.

 

You will find noone who loves remote hiking caches who will agree that such caches and urban nano caches to have an example on the other line of the scale should be subject to the same time schedule and expectation with regard to maintenance works.

 

Please just answer the question - yes or no.

[+Team Microdot]

You will find noone who loves remote hiking caches who will agree that such caches and urban nano caches to have an example on the other line of the scale should be subject to the same time schedule and expectation with regard to maintenance works.

 

And nobody in this thread has claimed otherwise as far as I recall.

 

Resorting time and time again to strawman arguments will serve only to take the thread off on unhelpful tangents and could even derail what is a perfectly good thread so please don't.

 

I think everyone here fully accepts that geocaches exist in a wide range of circumstances and that any algorithm-based system with even half a chance of being useful will need to take this range into account.

[+Team Microdot]

As you mention character flaws: Writing a NM log for a cache that requires say a 8 hours hike back and forth and mentioning that the log book is full and doing nothing about it would seem pretty harsh and unfriendly to me.

 

I tend to agree.

 

If I were going to hike 8 hours to get to a cache (which has never and I highly doubt will ever happen - and I suspect this to be true for the vast majority of cachers) I would definitely take spare logbooks.

 

Hopefully that can draw this additional tangent to a close and we can get on with the discussion proper.

[+barefootjeff]

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

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

[+dtvman]

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.

 

I know of one example that while it can't be proven with absolute certainty, seems highly suspicious. A cache was placed in December of 2011 (GC38N0K). It was a unique container in a somewhat interesting spot. In June of 2012, a cache (GC3P35Z) was placed, but not activated in the same spot while the other cache was still active and being found. June of 2013, the original cache that was at the location disappeared and the owner had to archive it. Within a matter of weeks the other cache was activated. I know personally that the container for the original cache showed back up in its location after the other was activated. Now why would a cache be placed in the exact same location as one that was already there? As further proof, there was a log the day the 2nd cache was placed by someone saying they were with the person when it was placed, but neither of them logged the cache that was there at the time. Seems very suspicious to me.

[cezanne]

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

 

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

 

Has anyone had a cache archived that was actually in perfectly good condition?

 

Maybe better ask: How many cachers have archived caches in perfectly good condition?

 

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

 

It would be quite absurd asking a cache owner to check their cache because I did not manage to get to the cache, could not open it or something else happening on my side.

 

We get lots of people who obviously read about caching somewhere, sign up, hide a cache, and then disappear. As they aren't well hidden, they disappear within a week. So they rack up numerous DNFs, but few people post a NA (I normally end up doing it). Once it has a NA, there are certain cachers from Madrid who post a found log when they haven't been anywhere near it, knowing that will end up getting archived. Hopefully this system will stop that from happening.

 

Typically that tends to happen in pretty urban areas. Why affect remote hiking caches by something which goes wrong in a completely different area with different participants?

[cezanne]

As you mention character flaws: Writing a NM log for a cache that requires say a 8 hours hike back and forth and mentioning that the log book is full and doing nothing about it would seem pretty harsh and unfriendly to me.

 

I tend to agree.

 

If I were going to hike 8 hours to get to a cache (which has never and I highly doubt will ever happen - and I suspect this to be true for the vast majority of cachers) I would definitely take spare logbooks.

 

Hopefully that can draw this additional tangent to a close and we can get on with the discussion proper.

 

The 8 hours were meant for the whole hike, not only to the cache in the nowhere. With that sort of scenario the group of cachers doing such caches is reasonable large and too large to ignore that group.

 

As to the above "the logbook full" was just an example. What fizzymagic wrote was more of an expression how it seems appropriate to him to deal with remote caches than an expression of supporting cachers who are not willing to maintain their caches. That's not a tangent but a key issue here.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+MartyBartfast]

I haven't read most of this thread as life is too short but...

 

A couple of weeks ago I DNFd 2 caches which hadn't been found in ~ 8 months & 10 months respectively, each had a number of DNFs in the meantime and one had an NM from a previous DNFer. I logged NMs on both, asking the COs to check and I put them on my watchlist as I normally do. Its getting close to the point where I would have checked those listings and possibly posted NAs on them if there was no response from the COs - I would certainly log an NA on the one which had a prior NM. However I then got a notification from each that they had been disabled by the reviewer with this comment:

 

This cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention. I notice that no action has been taken by the owner to correct the issue, could the owner please check this cache and give an indication of when it may be sorted out. If there is no response to this log after 30 days I will archive the cache. In the meantime I am disabling it.

 

I also logged a DNF and an NM on a different cache which had been found a month earlier and mine is the only recent DNF, this one has not been flagged, although I will still log an NA myself if no action is taken by the CO 'cos the GZ has been levelled to make way for a new road.

 

I'm guessing that it was this algorithm which flagged them, and if so I think it's worked pretty well in these circumstances, it's done what I would probably have done myself on the first two, and it's no being over zealous on the third one.

 

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

 

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

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves.

If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them.

 

I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it.

 

I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others.

 

There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run.

 

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

 

I thought the reason was obvious. There's something not quite right with the cache and GS want's to make sure you're aware of it. The fact that the e-mail was even sent indicates that something that should have been addressed that has not.

 

would you agree that multiple dnf's could indicate an issue with the cache.

 

1 dnf: I wouldn't worry about.

2 dnfs: I'd start to wonder

3 dnfs

 

It could, but would not necessarily mean there is an issue with the cache. What would you do for a cache like Shelter II?

 

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

[+barefootjeff]

I haven't read most of this thread as life is too short but...

 

A couple of weeks ago I DNFd 2 caches which hadn't been found in ~ 8 months & 10 months respectively, each had a number of DNFs in the meantime and one had an NM from a previous DNFer. I logged NMs on both, asking the COs to check and I put them on my watchlist as I normally do. Its getting close to the point where I would have checked those listings and possibly posted NAs on them if there was no response from the COs - I would certainly log an NA on the one which had a prior NM. However I then got a notification from each that they had been disabled by the reviewer with this comment:

 

This cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention. I notice that no action has been taken by the owner to correct the issue, could the owner please check this cache and give an indication of when it may be sorted out. If there is no response to this log after 30 days I will archive the cache. In the meantime I am disabling it.

 

I also logged a DNF and an NM on a different cache which had been found a month earlier and mine is the only recent DNF, this one has not been flagged, although I will still log an NA myself if no action is taken by the CO 'cos the GZ has been levelled to make way for a new road.

 

I'm guessing that it was this algorithm which flagged them, and if so I think it's worked pretty well in these circumstances, it's done what I would probably have done myself on the first two, and it's no being over zealous on the third one.

 

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

 

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

Both those caches you mentioned had outstanding NM logs, and I have no qualms about the algorithm drawing the CO's and ultimately a reviewer's attention to those. It's caches that have only DNF logs being caught in the net that bothers me. Today I visited a cache that I'd previously DNFed and still couldn't find it. It's had 22 DNFs logged against it, but the owner is active and occasionally posts OM logs saying everything's fine, and it's been found 105 times, the last just a few weeks ago. It's very well camouflaged in a place that gets heaps of muggles, and in my case each time I tried to do a thorough search another group of muggles would come along. Most of the DNF logs say the same thing; too many muggles to do a proper search. Did I log another DNF today? Not on your life! I don't want to be responsible for the demise of a perfectly good cache.

[+L0ne.R]

1488452948[/url]' post='5639133']

1488447462[/url]' post='5639120']

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

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

 

2.5/2? Sounds like it may be at least a 3.5/3.5.

[cezanne]

1488452948[/url]' post='5639133']

1488447462[/url]' post='5639120']

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

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

 

2.5/2? Sounds like it may be at least a 3.5/3.5.

 

Have you been there?

 

I often end up with DNFs for cache which do not have a high D rating and where I fully agree with the rating.

Last year I had a DNF for a TB hotel because I could find the right access on foot in the dark without a map. Once at GZ the next day it was a find within seconds.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+markoCR]

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

 

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

 

Has anyone had a cache archived that was actually in perfectly good condition?

 

Maybe better ask: How many cachers have archived caches in perfectly good condition?

 

As long as cache owners check on their caches regularly, I don't see the problem. I don't know how the algorithm works, but I'm assuming that 10 DNFs on a 1/1 cache will lose a lot more points than 5 DNFs on a 5/5 cache. And a cache with that many DNFs needs attention, simple as that.

 

It would be quite absurd asking a cache owner to check their cache because I did not manage to get to the cache, could not open it or something else happening on my side.

 

We get lots of people who obviously read about caching somewhere, sign up, hide a cache, and then disappear. As they aren't well hidden, they disappear within a week. So they rack up numerous DNFs, but few people post a NA (I normally end up doing it). Once it has a NA, there are certain cachers from Madrid who post a found log when they haven't been anywhere near it, knowing that will end up getting archived. Hopefully this system will stop that from happening.

 

Typically that tends to happen in pretty urban areas. Why affect remote hiking caches by something which goes wrong in a completely different area with different participants?

 

- That wasn't my point, geocaching has grown so much in recent years that out of the millions of caches that exist, there are probably hundreds of thousands that have needs maintenance or archive logs. This system will help reviewers know which caches to deal with first.

 

- If a cacher chooses to archive their own cache it's their decision, nothing to do with Groundspeak.

 

- 1 DNF won't affect the system. If 10 people log DNFs because they can't open the container or couldn't get there, there's obviously a problem with the cache.

 

- I live in a very rural area, it happens here too. I'm sure reviewers will use common sense when deciding what action to take (if any).

 

At the end of the day it's only an email.

[+justintim1999]

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.

 

How can you rationally discuss something when one party is convinced that everyone is plotting something sinister and every suggestion has an ulterior motive?

 

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

 

I see this as a simple tool cachers and reviewers can use to gauge cache maintenance without having to wade through pages of logs.

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

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

 

It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?" It's all about getting people to take maintenance seriously.

 

When you look at it you realize that the cache owner has complete power over the process. There is nothing a cacher, reviewer or an automated reminder can do that the cache owner can't nullify.

 

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

[+justintim1999]

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves.

If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them.

 

I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it.

 

I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others.

 

There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run.

 

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

 

I thought the reason was obvious. There's something not quite right with the cache and GS want's to make sure you're aware of it. The fact that the e-mail was even sent indicates that something that should have been addressed that has not.

 

would you agree that multiple dnf's could indicate an issue with the cache.

 

1 dnf: I wouldn't worry about.

2 dnfs: I'd start to wonder

3 dnfs

 

It could, but would not necessarily mean there is an issue with the cache. What would you do for a cache like Shelter II?

 

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

 

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

[+MartyBartfast]

Both those caches you mentioned had outstanding NM logs, and I have no qualms about the algorithm drawing the CO's and ultimately a reviewer's attention to those. It's caches that have only DNF logs being caught in the net that bothers me.

I just did a quick scan of other caches which have recently been disabled in my notification area by the same reviewer. There were 3 which only had DNFs. Looking at those they all look like they're no-longer there, there are many DNFs going back months, and haven't been found in over 6 months, but because nobody has logged an NM/NA against them they might have stayed listed but missing for ever so the algorithm seems to have worked again. Also it seems that the algorithm is just flagging the caches to the reviewers who can then use their judgement about whether or not to progress the disabling/archiving, it's not an automatic kill switch.

 

It's had 22 DNFs logged against it, but the owner is active and occasionally posts OM logs saying everything's fine, and it's been found 105 times, the last just a few weeks ago. It's very well camouflaged in a place that gets heaps of muggles, and in my case each time I tried to do a thorough search another group of muggles would come along. Most of the DNF logs say the same thing; too many muggles to do a proper search. Did I log another DNF today? Not on your life! I don't want to be responsible for the demise of a perfectly good cache.

 

Without knowing the specifics of the algorithm there's no reason to suspect that this cache would be flagged, and even if it was I would hope that the regular CO OM logs would inform the reviewers that the cache is still being looked after, and the description & D/T ratings would reassure them that DNFs are to be expected and it would be preprieved.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

I see this as a simple tool cachers and reviewers can use to gauge cache maintenance without having to wade through pages of logs.

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

 

Yep, absoulutely agree.

[+Touchstone]

 

I see this as a simple tool cachers and reviewers can use to gauge cache maintenance without having to wade through pages of logs.

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

 

Yep, absoulutely agree.

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

[+Team Microdot]

 

I see this as a simple tool cachers and reviewers can use to gauge cache maintenance without having to wade through pages of logs.

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

 

Yep, absoulutely agree.

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

 

Light blue touchpaper. Stand well back

[+coachstahly]

If I were you the e-mail would prompt me to contact my reviewer and explain my situation. They may agree with you and allow the NM to remain until the next log. They may also ask that you to take a look. The fear of loosing your cache shouldn't be the determining factor. your ability to properly maintain it shouldn't be. I know that's a tough pill to swallow.

 

Why should someone do that? (By the way such mails can be sent also for caches with no NMs and no NA logs at all). Most cache hiders I know hide and maintain caches for the community and not for themselves.

If GS is not any longer interested enough in having these caches on their site, then it's saving work and energy to remove them.

 

I might try to contact a reviewer if I want to rescue a cache owned by someone else because I have some interest into it.

 

I do not fear to lose a cache - I maintain them for others. Every cache I get rid of, makes me end up with less work. Right now the balance still works but when GS pushes things forward, it will not any longer be that way for me and others.

 

There is no tough pill to swallow involved. I'm not unhappy with maintenance requirements but with the way how GS deals with this matter and there is an easy way out of that which however ultimately would cause GS a problem in the long run.

 

I'm also extremely unhappy with the high importance of DNF logs which results from approaches like the one discussed here. I'd say that >90% of my DNF logs are for caches which are still there. Except in very special cases it's wasted time if a cache owner checks a cache after a DNF coming from me.

 

I thought the reason was obvious. There's something not quite right with the cache and GS want's to make sure you're aware of it. The fact that the e-mail was even sent indicates that something that should have been addressed that has not.

 

would you agree that multiple dnf's could indicate an issue with the cache.

 

1 dnf: I wouldn't worry about.

2 dnfs: I'd start to wonder

3 dnfs

 

It could, but would not necessarily mean there is an issue with the cache. What would you do for a cache like Shelter II?

 

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

 

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

Two of those DNFs are mine, along with a find eventually. The reviewer would certainly take it into consideration but the algorithm cannot and will not do so, meaning that the CO would most likely have received more than enough emails on this cache that could have warranted him archiving it due to the pestering. That being said, the automated email wasn't in place when this was published but it's in place now. I wonder what the health score would be right now, considering the DNF/find ratio is so high. I also wonder about the validity of many of these recent finds as there's almost no way it could really be "out in the open" or an "easy find", but I digress.

[cezanne]

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

I have already explained that I also feel affected when I search for caches and write my logs.

My way of logging makes it absolutely necessary to read what I wrote. I do not want to change my logging approach.

I still want to write a DNF log whenever I have done that up to now.

I also defend the right of a group of 12 people to log each a DNF if they made a mistake when caching as a group.

Noone would ask them to issue only one found it log and ask the others to write a note or do not log at all.

 

 

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

 

It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?" It's all about getting people to take maintenance seriously.

 

There are apparently different understandings what it means to maintain a cache properly.

If the owner of a hiking cache places a reasonable container and is willing to visit the cache when it fits into their schedule and when weather conditions and personal safety conditions allow it and a visit is necessary, then that's I regard as proper maintenance. I'm fully ok with someone leaving a new pencil, a new log book and even a new container to replace the old one (upon agreement with the cache hider) and I do not think that in such cases the owner did a bad maintenance job.

 

If proper maintenance means for you to rush out for the cache a few hours or at most two days after a DNF log comes in, then that's your own idea of proper maintenance.

 

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

 

So you would run out to check a cache on a mountain which requires you to spend a full day whenever a cacher like me logs a DNF?

I appreciate if cache owners take care about their caches but rushing to check a cache after I wrote a DNF is a waste of time exceppt in certain cases where I contact the CO separately. It would also absurd to log an armchair OM log after each DNF of a cacher like myself. So what is a reasonable approach in your opinion?

[cezanne]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

 

What puzzles me is how you know no maintenance is required if you didn't find the cache

[+justintim1999]

 

If your a responsible cache owner why would any of this threaten you at all?

 

I have already explained that I also feel affected when I search for caches and write my logs.

My way of logging makes it absolutely necessary to read what I wrote. I do not want to change my logging approach.

I still want to write a DNF log whenever I have done that up to now.

I also defend the right of a group of 12 people to log each a DNF if they made a mistake when caching as a group.

Noone would ask them to issue only one found it log and ask the others to write a note or do not log at all.

 

 

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

 

It may reduce these types of hides but only because cache owners might stop and think. "If I hide this, will I be able to maintain it properly?" It's all about getting people to take maintenance seriously.

 

There are apparently different understandings what it means to maintain a cache properly.

If the owner of a hiking cache places a reasonable container and is willing to visit the cache when it fits into their schedule and when weather conditions and personal safety conditions allow it and a visit is necessary, then that's I regard as proper maintenance. I'm fully ok with someone leaving a new pencil, a new log book and even a new container to replace the old one (upon agreement with the cache hider) and I do not think that in such cases the owner did a bad maintenance job.

 

If proper maintenance means for you to rush out for the cache a few hours or at most two days after a DNF log comes in, then that's your own idea of proper maintenance.

 

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

 

So you would run out to check a cache on a mountain which requires you to spend a full day whenever a cacher like me logs a DNF?

I appreciate if cache owners take care about their caches but rushing to check a cache after I wrote a DNF is a waste of time exceppt in certain cases where I contact the CO separately. It would also absurd to log an armchair OM log after each DNF of a cacher like myself. So what is a reasonable approach in your opinion?

 

Would you run out and check on a mountain cache if someone posted a Needs Maintanance?

[cezanne]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

 

What puzzles me is how you know no maintenance is required if you didn't find the cache

 

There are even quite a number of cases when I saw the container but could not reach it or did not dare to go there.

 

Moreover, I think that it's quite absurd if the owner of a cache would use a DNF by me caused by me not finding the right trail to the cache or me ending up at bogus coordinates due to stupidity as reason to pay a visit to his/her cache. Of course a cache could go missing at any time but my DNF logs are more often than not something which is not to be thought as a good trigger for a cache check.

 

You could also decide to take a DNF log by someone who pressed go on his GPS and then the car broke down 10km from the cache as trigger for a maintenance visit like you could visit your cache every time when there is a full moon.

 

It would be a bad idea to use such DNFs as triggers for automatic tools like you would not use the moon condition for such an algorithm.

 

You need to take into account that some of us use DNF for writing about failures. Like I do not log a find if I actually found the container but only if I signed the log, I log DNF if I did not manage to sign the log and explain why.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

 

What puzzles me is how you know no maintenance is required if you didn't find the cache

 

There are even quite a number of cases when I saw the container but could not reach it or did not dare to go there.

 

Moreover, I think that it's quite absurd if the owner of a cache would use a DNF by me caused by me not finding the right trail to the cache or me ending up at bogus coordinates due to stupidity as reason to pay a visit to his/her cache. Of course a cache could go missing at any time but my DNF logs are more often than not something which is not to be thought as a good trigger for a cache check.

 

You need to take into account that some of us use DNF for writing about failures. Like I do not log a find if I actually found the container but only if I signed the log, I log DNF if I did not manage to sign the log and explain why.

 

OK - point taken - thanks for the clarification

[+justintim1999]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

 

What puzzles me is how you know no maintenance is required if you didn't find the cache

 

There are even quite a number of cases when I saw the container but could not reach it or did not dare to go there.

 

Moreover, I think that it's quite absurd if the owner of a cache would use a DNF by me caused by me not finding the right trail to the cache or me ending up at bogus coordinates due to stupidity as reason to pay a visit to his/her cache. Of course a cache could go missing at any time but my DNF logs are more often than not something which is not to be thought as a good trigger for a cache check.

 

It is absurd to think you have to run out and check a cache because of a single dnf. I don't recall anyone saying you have to.

 

You need to take into account that some of us use DNF for writing about failures. Like I do not log a find if I actually found the container but only if I signed the log, I log DNF if I did not manage to sign the log and explain why.

[+Touchstone]

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

 

So you do not regard it as fact that there are many cachers out there who feel that this sort of algorithm threatens their habit to log DNFs in cases where it is obvious that no maintenance is required?

THANK YOU! I'm glad someone is listening to me. Now please, can the rest of you please get back on topic about our *feelings*?

[cezanne]

Would you run out and check on a mountain cache if someone posted a Needs Maintanance?

 

No. Depending on the contents of the log I first would ask for details and then I would write a note with a contents depending on the situation.

 

If a visit were required I would mention that I would try to visit the cache as soon as it fits into my schedule or the conditions allow it.

I own caches which I cannot reach under all conditions (e.g. ice and snow) - some physically more able people could reach it all year long but not myself.

In such a case I might even add to the note that if someone feels comfortable with a winter visit and could help me out, I would be grateful.

 

I try to react quickly and not to ignore any log or mail sent to me. However this does not mean that I regard rushing out to visit a cache as something urgent except under very special circumstances. If someone decides to archive a cache it is lost forever - if this person needs 1 month in addition to fix the cache, I have nothing to lose and it's pretty much clear what I prefer.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+justintim1999]

Would you run out and check on a mountain cache if someone posted a Needs Maintanance?

 

No. Depending on the contents of the log I first would ask for details and then I would write a note with a contents depending on the situation.

 

If a visit were required I would mention that I would try to visit the cache as soon as it fits into my schedule or the conditions allow it.

I own caches which I cannot reach under all conditions (e.g. ice and snow) - some physically more able people could reach it all year long but not myself.

In such a case I might even add to the note that if someone feels comfortable with a winter visit and could help me out, I would be grateful.

 

I try to react quickly and not to ignore any log or mail sent to me. However this does not mean that I regard rushing out to visit a cache as something urgent except under very special circumstances. If someone decides to archive a cache it is lost forever - if this person needs 1 month in addition to fix the cache, I have nothing to lose and it's pretty much clear what I prefer.

 

So if the NM was valid you'd disable the cache and post a note as to when you think you could fix it.

The request for assistance is also a good idea for a cache like this.

 

All this is in line with being an active cache owner. The cache score seems to be designed to address this very behavior, or lack of.

[cezanne]

So if the NM was valid you'd disable the cache and post a note as to when you think you could fix it.

 

I would disable the cache if required. Certainly not if the log book is wet for example and can be signed anyway.

 

The request for assistance is also a good idea for a cache like this.

 

All this is in line with being an active cache owner. The cache score seems to be designed to address this very behavior, or lack of.

 

So now we are back at my main point. In my opinion the cache score does not do a good job - it will inconvenience and affect the wrong cachers.

It does not make sense for example to discourage cachers to log DNFs or to force them to change their habits when they log a DNF.

A human can easily judge the case depending on what is logged - a machine can't.

 

As asking if someone could help out or the situation that a cacher out there decides on his/her own to e.g. provide a new log book is regarded, that's something cachers like Lone.R apparently frown upon. I mentioned the case because I think that while some rules obviously make sense for all caches, we cannot handle an urban nano with 10 visits per week in the same way than a remote hiking cache with 2 visits a year. The maintenance requirements are different not in the sense that for one cache no maintenance is necessary but just the time schedule is different and also the willingness of other cachers to help out depends on the cache.

[+justintim1999]

So if the NM was valid you'd disable the cache and post a note as to when you think you could fix it.

 

I would disable the cache if required. Certainly not if the log book is wet for example and can be signed anyway.

 

The request for assistance is also a good idea for a cache like this.

 

All this is in line with being an active cache owner. The cache score seems to be designed to address this very behavior, or lack of.

 

So now we are back at my main point. In my opinion the cache score does not do a good job - it will inconvenience and affect the wrong cachers.

It does not make sense for example to discourage cachers to log DNFs or to force them to change their habits when they log a DNF.

A human can easily judge the case depending on what is logged - a machine can't.

 

As asking if someone could help out or the situation that a cacher out there decides on his/her own to e.g. provide a new log book is regarded, that's something cachers like Lone.R apparently frown upon. I mentioned the case because I think that while some rules obviously make sense for all caches, we cannot handle an urban nano with 10 visits per week in the same way than a remote hiking cache with 2 visits a year. The maintenance requirements are different not in the sense that for one cache no maintenance is necessary but just the time schedule is different and also the willingness of other cachers to help out depends on the cache.

 

It may inconvenience a select few, you being one of them, but in the grand scheme of things it could do more good than bad.

[cezanne]

 

It may inconvenience a select few, you being one of them, but in the grand scheme of things it could do more good than bad.

 

That's our claim which is not backed up by any proof or evidence.

I know many cachers who write DNF logs which have no implication in the cache health.

And all owners of caches that are harder to get to I know would be inconvenienced.

All all owners of really difficult caches.

 

And then to add, I'm not at all convinced about the positive effects of an automatic system like that for the cachers out there on a large scale. Cache health is improved by cache owners who take care (=humans) and not by electronic stuff.

Edited March 2, 2017 by cezanne

[+Team Microdot]

I mentioned the case because I think that while some rules obviously make sense for all caches, we cannot handle an urban nano with 10 visits per week in the same way than a remote hiking cache with 2 visits a year. The maintenance requirements are different not in the sense that for one cache no maintenance is necessary but just the time schedule is different and also the willingness of other cachers to help out depends on the cache.

 

This has already been mentioned and accepted.

 

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

 

Your points have been duly noted.

 

It's now time to move forward.

[+justintim1999]

 

It may inconvenience a select few, you being one of them, but in the grand scheme of things it could do more good than bad.

 

That's our claim which is not backed up by any proof or evidence.

I know many cachers who write DNF logs which have no implication in the cache health.

And all owners of caches that are harder to get to I know would be inconvenienced.

All all owners of really difficult caches.

 

And then to add, I'm not at all convinced about the positive effects of an automatic system like that for the cachers out there on a large scale. Cache health is improved by cache owners who take care (=humans) and not by electronic stuff.

3

 

I don't remember anyone suggesting the need to run out and check on a cache because of a single dnf. You're using the single dnf as an argument against the rating system and it doesn't apply.

 

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

[cezanne]

 

This has already been mentioned and accepted.

 

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

 

Your points have been duly noted.

 

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

[+hzoi]

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

I would characterize that as a "minor problem" cache.

I don't categorize caches so much as I just react to them individually. My reaction to this one was, "That's a hot mess." If I saw that the CO was active, I'd log it NM. If I saw that they weren't, I'd log it NA.

Edited March 2, 2017 by hzoi

[cezanne]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[+Team Microdot]

I call this a problem cache:

 

 

I would characterize that as a "minor problem" cache.

I don't categorize caches so much as I just react to them individually. My reaction to this one was, "That's a hot mess." If I saw that the CO was active, I'd log it NM. If I saw that they weren't, I'd log it NA.

 

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

 

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