Jump to content

Geocache Health Score


Team Microdot

Recommended Posts

I never understood why the main interest of some people seems to get caches off the map. I'm selecting all my caches manually. I could not even tell how many caches are there in area with a certain property and I never understood the people who e.g. create a PQ of all caches which are disabled since say x months, or all with a red wrench and are not reviewers.

 

Then allow me to explain. It's obvious to me that the PQ's referenced above have been created for the sole purpose of bringing some facts into the thread - not outlandish imagined scenarios which serve no purpose other than to drag a thread screaming from its tracks - but cold, hard facts. I find that quite refreshing. It would be nice to see more of it. Facts are good. I like facts :D

Link to comment

I never understood why the main interest of some people seems to get caches off the map. I'm selecting all my caches manually. I could not even tell how many caches are there in area with a certain property and I never understood the people who e.g. create a PQ of all caches which are disabled since say x months, or all with a red wrench and are not reviewers.

 

Then allow me to explain. It's obvious to me that the PQ's referenced above have been created for the sole purpose of bringing some facts into the thread - not outlandish imagined scenarios which serve no purpose other than to drag a thread screaming from its tracks - but cold, hard facts. I find that quite refreshing. It would be nice to see more of it. Facts are good. I like facts :D

 

This very PQ certainly has been created for that purpose. Yet many cachers create such PQs also outside of the context of a discussion like this one and it fits the general trend that many seem to be care more about the data base than the actual caches out there.

 

When it comes to someone complaining that there are no attractive caches to be found in their area, it is relevant how many caches are in bad condition but not how many caches carry a certain flag.

 

I'm not against facts. However it is also a fact that there are caches out there who carry the NM attribute and do not have any problem.

 

There are caches out in the mountains with a quality container which is in good condition and do not have any issue and this being the original condition, not the result of a throwdown. Now suppose that the owner is not active any longer and someone posts a NM by mistake (for example a new cache who used the wrong log type). The NM attribute cannot be cleared but the cache is perfectly ok and in my opinion much nicer than >90% of what gets newly hidden.

 

One of the issues I have this health score thing in the way it is described here is that it aims at deleting such caches from the map while I have a strong interest into such caches staying on the map and in the data base.

 

The real conflict cases are not containers of the type you posted photos of.

 

It's a clash of interests.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I never understood why the main interest of some people seems to get caches off the map. I'm selecting all my caches manually. I could not even tell how many caches are there in area with a certain property and I never understood the people who e.g. create a PQ of all caches which are disabled since say x months, or all with a red wrench and are not reviewers.

 

Then allow me to explain. It's obvious to me that the PQ's referenced above have been created for the sole purpose of bringing some facts into the thread - not outlandish imagined scenarios which serve no purpose other than to drag a thread screaming from its tracks - but cold, hard facts. I find that quite refreshing. It would be nice to see more of it. Facts are good. I like facts :D

 

This very PQ certainly has been created for that purpose. Yet many cachers create such PQs also outside of the context of a discussion like this one

 

Then for the love of all that's sacred - leave them outside of this discussion. This is another thing that you do that sends discussions spiralling off into some foreign galaxy - if it's outside the context of the thread - leave it there!

 

One of the issues I have this health score thing in the way it is described here is that it aims at deleting such caches from the map while I have a strong interest into such caches staying on the map and in the data base.

 

If the health score thing has any objective it is in helping to ensure that caches comply with the existing guidelines that we all agree to play by.

 

If a cache shouldn't be on the map because it is abandoned junk then it shouldn't be on the map.

 

If you're interested in keeping caches on the map that are abandoned junk then I'm against you. I don't just disagree with you - I'm against you.

 

Say NO to junk geocaches.

Link to comment

 

Trashy caches without an outstanding NM log won't be picked up by the Cache Health algorithm since it's then only looking at DNFs and people DNF because they can't find a cache at all, not because it's trashy.

 

If there are trashy caches in your area with outstanding NMs, you should feel free to log NAs on them as long as you think you've given the CO enough time to respond to the NM.

 

So what trashy caches will the Cache Health system get off the map that you can't already clear just as quickly with an NA?

 

Well it will get rid of those trashy caches that I haven't looked for yet, so I'm not in a position to post NAs against, and will save me going looking for the trash.

 

I am one of those cachers who do post NAs, but many don't. The algorithm will help to get rid of cache listings where the cache is nolonger there, so saving me wasting time searching for it; and caches which are a mess, so saving me the unpleasant experience of sticking my hand into a soggy putrid mess.

 

As long as the implementation is good, then I believe it will lead to an overall improvement in the cache health and give a better experience for all finders; my admittedly limited experience of the algorithm so far suggests that the implementation is good and pretty much matches my own standards.

Link to comment

Just to clarify... the algorithm "helps get junky caches off the map" indirectly by eventually leading a reviewer to look at the cache where previously nothing may have led them to look at the cache; that is, the existence of a flag (that lone blinking warning light that no one seems to look at or notice until the last minute in disaster movies) that indicates a bad health score. At that point human judgement has determined that the cache is problematic, without another user's report, and after the standard procedure of the reviewer has completed (indicating abandoned cache with no viable defense for its continued existence anyway), the cache may then be archived.

 

Man, this algorithmm really sucks! ph34r.gif

Link to comment

.....but I don't think it's efficient enough and could be streamlined.

 

So tell me again what the mad rush is all about?

 

I guess I just don't like finding trash. Could be I'd like to see spaces open up so responsible cachers can hide something new and nice I can go find. It's more likely I'm jealous I have to spend time maintaining my caches while other owners are busy organizing their sock drawer.

 

Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today, right?

Y'know, I looked briefly around the neighborhood of one of the caches you own, and was actually struck by how few of the nearby Listings were Disabled, or even had the dreaded red wrench for that matter. Looks like you might have to travel a bit further to get out of this apparent land of milk and honey you live in, to find this so called *trash* you speak of.

 

You mean the land to taxes and corruption right?

 

You are correct sir, I live in an area that has very good cache owners.

 

So why am I so passionate about this topic?

 

When you stopped by you should have looked me up. You'd have noticed that more than half my finds were a little further away than my own neighborhood, although not as far as you've traveled.

 

So to answer my own question, It's about geocaching and making it better.

Link to comment

Just to clarify... the algorithm "helps get junky caches off the map" indirectly by eventually leading a reviewer to look at the cache where previously nothing may have led them to look at the cache; that is, the existence of a flag (that lone blinking warning light that no one seems to look at or notice until the last minute in disaster movies) that indicates a bad health score. At that point human judgement has determined that the cache is problematic, without another user's report, and after the standard procedure of the reviewer has completed (indicating abandoned cache with no viable defense for its continued existence anyway), the cache may then be archived.

 

Man, this algorithmm really sucks! ph34r.gif

 

Eventually?

 

You don't think that they'll be taking a pro-active approach of running a query every so often of nearby caches with health scores below a given threshold and taking a look at them?

 

I know that's how I'd use the tool.

Link to comment
Why wait until a NA is necessary to start the process of weeding out bad caches? What's wrong with identifying them early and getting them off the map?
If an NA is not necessary, then why do we need to get them off the map?

Because in many of these cases an NA is inevitable. Sooner or later these caches will wind up being archived. NAs are still necessary and the current system works to a point but I don't think it's efficient enough and could be streamlined.
To me, NA means we need to get the cache off the map (unless the owner fixes the problem promptly). And caches we need to get off the map are caches where an NA is necessary.

 

I'm confused by the distinction you seem to be making between caches where an NA is necessary, and caches that we need to get off the map because an NA is "inevitable" (even though it is not yet "necessary").

 

I'm trying really hard to think of an analogy that will help you understand my point. I'm sorry but I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be.

 

Why do you go to the doctor for an annual physical even though at the time you feel fine? Because detecting some health issue early increases the chance of successful treatment. Same here. It's about getting POTENTIAL problems identified early and trying to get them fixed before they become bigger issues. I think GS's intent here is more about education.

 

I would love to know how many caches, flagged by this health score, received e-mails and were fixed up? Edited

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment

Why wait until a NA is necessary to start the process of weeding out bad caches? What's wrong with identifying them early and getting them off the map?

This is caching 101. The NM tells the CO there's a problem and gives him time to react. The NA tells the reviewer that the CO didn't react. I think the amount of time spent is both reasonable and fair.

 

Yes and if everybody used them, correctly, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Link to comment

Why wait until a NA is necessary to start the process of weeding out bad caches? What's wrong with identifying them early and getting them off the map?

This is caching 101. The NM tells the CO there's a problem and gives him time to react. The NA tells the reviewer that the CO didn't react. I think the amount of time spent is both reasonable and fair.

 

Yes and if everybody used them, correctly, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

 

Bravo! Nice to see that someone can see the obvious B)

Link to comment
Why wait until a NA is necessary to start the process of weeding out bad caches? What's wrong with identifying them early and getting them off the map?
If an NA is not necessary, then why do we need to get them off the map?

Because in many of these cases an NA is inevitable. Sooner or later these caches will wind up being archived. NAs are still necessary and the current system works to a point but I don't think it's efficient enough and could be streamlined.
To me, NA means we need to get the cache off the map (unless the owner fixes the problem promptly). And caches we need to get off the map are caches where an NA is necessary.

 

I'm confused by the distinction you seem to be making between caches where an NA is necessary, and caches that we need to get off the map because an NA is "inevitable" (even though it is not yet "necessary").

 

I'm trying really hard to think of an analogy that will help you understand my point. I'm sorry but I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be.

 

Why do you go to the doctor for an annual physical even though at the time you feel fine? Because detecting some health issue early increases the chance of successful treatment. Same here. It's about getting POTENTIAL problems identified early and trying to get them fixed before they become bigger issues. I think GS's intent here is more about education.

 

I would love to know how many caches, flagged by this health score, received e-mails and were fixed up? Edited

Hmm, the education I got from this is to not log DNFs anymore unless I know for sure the cache is missing, and to not hide caches that are likely to get any significant number of DNFs.

 

Yes, it'd be interesting to know the success rate of the system and its false positive rate, but I guess we never will. I haven't seen any evidence of it being used locally to remove unhealthy caches - all the ones that have been reviewer-archived of late have either had NAs on them or were nabbed for being left temporarily disabled for too long.

 

For your tally, in my case I got the email but didn't fix the cache, disable it, archive it or even log an armchair OM, in fact I still haven't been out there since it was found by the DNFer who'd been looking in the wrong place. I will though when we eventually get some weather favourable for kayaking to it, just to make sure it hasn't been gobbled up by a hungry wombat over the summer. It's been over two months since its second find so it must be getting close to becoming unhealthy due to insufficient finders.

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health). Other was a high D rated cache, which *should* get DNFs because caches did not find it would just get a poorer and poorer health score even if the human factor (a reviewer) determines that there isn't a problem with the cache. What's going to happen with a cache with a poor health score, even when there are not problems with it? Geocachers are going to see the score (although we haven't seen any indication that it will be displayed, even to cache owners) and won't try to find the cache, which will lower the score even more.

 

 

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

 

Other was a high D rated cache, which *should* get DNFs because caches did not find it would just get a poorer and poorer health score even if the human factor (a reviewer) determines that there isn't a problem with the cache. What's going to happen with a cache with a poor health score, even when there are not problems with it? Geocachers are going to see the score (although we haven't seen any indication that it will be displayed, even to cache owners) and won't try to find the cache, which will lower the score even more.

 

These would be more difficult to deal with using algorithms I expect.

 

The trick might be that each cache has an average Finds:DNF ratio such that what is 'normal' for any individual cache can steer the algorithm in a more custom manner. This statistic can be easily calculated using existing data.

Link to comment

 

If you're interested in keeping caches on the map that are abandoned junk then I'm against you. I don't just disagree with you - I'm against you.

 

Say NO to junk geocaches.

 

How do you define *junk*?

 

Up to now I understood junk in the context of geocaching as a problem cache of the type who posted photos of.

 

If you understand as junk an ammo can in perfect condition belonging to a cache which pleases all who go for it but with an owner who has given up geocaching, then I think that most cachers I know that like hiking caches would not join in your "say no to junk".

 

What plays a role for me is the condition of a cache and whether the listing is up to date. I do not care whether the owner is active if there is no issue at all. There are many caches out there owned by active owners that do not get visited by their owners for years. briansnat e.g. mentioned caches older than 10 years in perfect shape that he never visited.

 

In a semiurban area more can change and so I happen to visit caches more often in areas where something can change. Up on a remote mountain it often suffices to have a good container - if an issue shows up, then an active owner will visit the cache, otherwise not. If an issue arises for a cache of a not active owner, it's early enough to deal with the issue when there is one. It's the same as for every cache even with an active owner. You will never know in advance whether someone will react if there is an issue. So why make a difference whether the owner is reachable if a cache does not have an issue?

 

These caches definitely do not take away room for other cache placements. Typically it is neither possible to find cachers who are willing to adopt such caches nor cachers that would hide a new such cache. So why archive caches that are in perfect shape out of a formality which plays a role for cachers who do not go for such caches anyhow? It feels like dictatorship to me.

Link to comment

 

If you're interested in keeping caches on the map that are abandoned junk then I'm against you. I don't just disagree with you - I'm against you.

 

Say NO to junk geocaches.

 

How do you define *junk*?

 

Up to now I understood junk in the context of geocaching as a problem cache of the type who posted photos of.

 

Yes - any cache that looks like that photograph is junk.

 

If you understand as junk an ammo can in perfect condition belonging to a cache which pleases all who go for it but with an owner who has given up geocaching, then I think that most cachers I know that like hiking caches would not join in your "say no to junk".

 

I wouldn't expect them to. If the cache is in good shape - play on :)

 

These caches definitely do not take away room for other cache placements. Typically it is neither possible to find cachers who are willing to adopt such caches nor cachers that would hide a new such cache. So why archive caches that are in perfect shape out of a formality which plays a role for cachers who do not go for such caches anyhow? It feels like dictatorship to me.

 

If this discussion makes you feel like you are in a dictatorship then you're reading of the discussion is wrong.

 

Try to read the words which people actually write. Try to avoid imagining extreme cases which nobody else is talking about. Try to recognise that people here already fully realise that caches differ from each other and that any algorithm-based system that has a chance of working well will have to take that into consideration. Try to see that some people here have offered ideas on how that can be accomplished. You could even contribute to that process yourself, although I doubt that will happen. You seem to conveniently ignore anything which contradicts your extreme imagined scenarios. It's just a shame that you doing that overwhelms the good / interesting discussion taking place here.

Link to comment

Eventually?

 

You don't think that they'll be taking a pro-active approach of running a query every so often of nearby caches with health scores below a given threshold and taking a look at them?

 

I know that's how I'd use the tool.

I don't think most reviewers want to actively do more. I think the tool aids in their already-existing, current process, by highlighting priority concerns. If I was a reviewer who had a regular schedule for sweeping for maintenance issues, I probably wouldn't add another routine to that schedule. But if this tool helps draw attention to the chaff, then I'd gladly welcome it. I think reviewers want to avoid "pro-active" actions, especially with a notable margin for error, wherever possible.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

These would be more difficult to deal with using algorithms I expect.

 

The trick might be that each cache has an average Finds:DNF ratio such that what is 'normal' for any individual cache can steer the algorithm in a more custom manner. This statistic can be easily calculated using existing data.

 

I was just going to comment. We act as though there is only one metric in use here: a single 'score' (that which triggers the email). There may be a number of relevant categories, which may be reviewable individually as well as each being considered in light of each other in order to determine a final, generalized, 'score'. eg, a final score may be low, but if the reviewer sees that the Find/DNF ratio is low and mainly affected that score, they may choose to let it pass. Ideally, that could prompt an adjustment to the weighting of DNFs so the score isn't so negatively affected by a case such as that cache. Who knows.

 

If I were developing this algorithm, I'd certainly prefer to see the individual factors that produce the final score listed out so I can judge various cases and see if the weightings can be adjusted to improve the 'score' calculation. (or as a reviewer, whether to weigh my own opinion into the mix, and heed the cache's score or ignore it)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

If you understand as junk an ammo can in perfect condition belonging to a cache which pleases all who go for it but with an owner who has given up geocaching, then I think that most cachers I know that like hiking caches would not join in your "say no to junk".

 

I wouldn't expect them to. If the cache is in good shape - play on :)

 

I asked because you answered say no to junk to my example of a cache in good shape owned by someone who has quit geocaching which ends up with a NM log (e.g. by mistake or by a newbie) noone can clear so that it will stay there.

 

If this discussion makes you feel like you are in a dictatorship then you're reading of the discussion is wrong.

 

No, not the discussion of course. I was thinking that you might define every cache with an owner not regularly logging into the site any longer as junk. Some apparently want to remove all such caches from the data base regardless of the condition of the cache.

 

Try to avoid imagining extreme cases which nobody else is talking about.

 

Actually I only mentioned cases which I'm familiar with. They exist and I'm really concerned about these caches and not inventing something for the sake of discussion.

 

Try to recognise that people here already fully realise that caches differ from each other and that any algorithm-based system that has a chance of working well will have to take that into consideration.

 

I appreciate that. It does not change that apparently many are more focussed on the NM attribute than on the condition of a cache. There are perfectly fine caches out there with the NM attribute and it will never get cleared and I do not want that those caches get archived unless they have a problem.

Link to comment

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.

It might interest you to know that, since the introduction of the Cache Health notification emails in late 2015, this particular cache has never received one of the system-generated messages.

 

For every actual or speculative example of an inaccurate algorithm, there are plenty of other examples where the algorithm performed well. When it doesn't perform well, reviewers can see this and we can give very specific feedback to Geocaching HQ. This has led to adjustments to the algorithm.

 

But I have posted all that before.

 

Which begs the question.. why is this thread still alive?????

Link to comment

Which begs the question.. why is this thread still alive?????

Because Geocaching HQ still offers just the Geocaching Forums Classic App. Once the Geocaching® Forums App is introduced, basic members can only see or post in threads that are 1.5 pages long or less. Or, using a third party forum app, basic members would be limited to posting in three threads per day.

Link to comment

I appreciate that. It does not change that apparently many are more focussed on the NM attribute than on the condition of a cache. There are perfectly fine caches out there with the NM attribute and it will never get cleared and I do not want that those caches get archived unless they have a problem.

 

I should have added - repeating the same information over and over and over again when it's already been acknowledged multiple times is another way to ruin a perfectly good thread.

 

Why not start a thread of your own where you can just write exhaustively about all the things you don't like and all the things that you believe are wrong and all the extreme scenario's that make you right?

 

Be sure to let me know where it is so I can stay the heck away from it and try to stick to threads that actually go somewhere other than round and round forever in pointless circles. :ph34r:

Link to comment

These would be more difficult to deal with using algorithms I expect.

 

The trick might be that each cache has an average Finds:DNF ratio such that what is 'normal' for any individual cache can steer the algorithm in a more custom manner. This statistic can be easily calculated using existing data.

 

I was just going to comment. We act as though there is only one metric in use here: a single 'score' (that which triggers the email). There may be a number of relevant categories, which may be reviewable individually as well as each being considered in light of each other in order to determine a final, generalized, 'score'. eg, a final score may be low, but if the reviewer sees that the Find/DNF ratio is low and mainly affected that score, they may choose to let it pass. Ideally, that could prompt an adjustment to the weighting of DNFs so the score isn't so negatively affected by a case such as that cache. Who knows.

 

If I were developing this algorithm, I'd certainly prefer to see the individual factors that produce the final score listed out so I can judge various cases and see if the weightings can be adjusted to improve the 'score' calculation. (or as a reviewer, whether to weigh my own opinion into the mix, and heed the cache's score or ignore it)

 

I guess the idea behind a single score built up through a number of layers is to facilitate a single simple decision point and a single measure by which a binary decision can be made which is consistent. We might liken it to the bouncer on a nightclub door who refuses entry because our name isn't on the list. He doesn't care why our name isn't on the list or what circumstances led to that - he's able to make a simple, consistent choice which treats everyone 'fairly'.

 

What we are considering here though isn't necessarily the same binary choice - if we remember that our decision point is threshold based and we can move the threshold up and down to suit requirements at a particular time or if it is judged that the impact of the threshold is too hard or too soft.

 

I think you're right though that providing the reviewer with a simple explanation of how that score has been built up would be a good facilitator of human discretion - but for all we know the reviewer doesn't want that responsibility - he wants the same simple, straight forward binary choice that the nightclub bouncer has. We may never know :)

Link to comment

I guess the idea behind a single score built up through a number of layers is to facilitate a single simple decision point and a single measure by which a binary decision can be made which is consistent.

Right, and that's necessary for the binary trigger that shoots of the email.

But if/when a potential issue comes to the judgement of the reviewer, all those contributing factors can certainly be of interest and aid.

 

I think you're right though that providing the reviewer with a simple explanation of how that score has been built up would be a good facilitator of human discretion - but for all we know the reviewer doesn't want that responsibility - he wants the same simple, straight forward binary choice that the nightclub bouncer has. We may never know :)

Well the reviewer always has to make a judgement when reviewing a publishing cache state, that's not new. The algorithm doesn't make a choice, and it doesn't strictly affect the reviewer judgement (they can heed it or not). It seems that it only aids in promoting potential problem caches towards the reviewer's attention. So any available info that helps the reviewer make a better judgement (which isn't "more work"), I think, would be welcomed.

Link to comment

Which begs the question.. why is this thread still alive?????

Because Geocaching HQ still offers just the Geocaching Forums Classic App. Once the Geocaching® Forums App is introduced, basic members can only see or post in threads that are 1.5 pages long or less. Or, using a third party forum app, basic members would be limited to posting in three threads per day.

 

Bwa ha ha. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Link to comment

I guess the idea behind a single score built up through a number of layers is to facilitate a single simple decision point and a single measure by which a binary decision can be made which is consistent.

Right, and that's necessary for the binary trigger that shoots of the email.

But if/when a potential issue comes to the judgement of the reviewer, all those contributing factors can certainly be of interest and aid.

 

I was trying to imagine what the reviewer user interface might look like last night.

 

I imagined the reviewer presented with a list of caches with scores below the chosen threshold, ordered by score with a 'send email' checkbox next to each one - possibly checked by default.

 

I imagined the reviewer scrolling through the list, unticking any which, in his opinion, after a quick drill-down into the detail, didn't merit an email (possibly adding a beneficial score on the basis of reviewer attention and thus lifting it above the theshold) and then hitting the big OK button at the end.

 

Then I thought about how much programming might be involved and concluded that as this was a back-end mechanism it needn't be pretty and thus design and development time could be spent on functionality.

 

I know - I'm sad - but I enjoy thinking about things like that :laughing:

Link to comment

I should have added - repeating the same information over and over and over again when it's already been acknowledged multiple times is another way to ruin a perfectly good thread.

 

I cannot recall that anyone suggested a way to modify the algorithm such that it does not react to caches with an uncleared NM attribute which are in good shape. Post an OM log is also not a solution for the described situation.

 

I'm aware that there are areas where the reviewers already now do sweeps also for caches with the NM attribute and not only for NA logs. This is not happening in my area - so there a whole lot more could change here.

Link to comment

I cannot recall that anyone suggested a way to modify the algorithm such that it does not react to caches with an uncleared NM attribute which are in good shape. Post an OM log is also not a solution for the described situation.

 

Well, yes. Posting a OM will clear a NM log and let others know the cache is being maintained by it's owner. :P

Link to comment

using a third party forum app, basic members would be limited to posting in three threads per day.

the third party forum app has to use the gs-api?

Or a non-proprietary interface?

As long as they don't scrape the forum!

 

I know - I'm sad - but I enjoy thinking about things like that :laughing:

Ditto, dude. Ditto.

Link to comment

Just to clarify... the algorithm "helps get junky caches off the map" indirectly by eventually leading a reviewer to look at the cache where previously nothing may have led them to look at the cache; that is, the existence of a flag (that lone blinking warning light that no one seems to look at or notice until the last minute in disaster movies) that indicates a bad health score. At that point human judgement has determined that the cache is problematic, without another user's report, and after the standard procedure of the reviewer has completed (indicating abandoned cache with no viable defense for its continued existence anyway), the cache may then be archived.

 

Man, this algorithmm really sucks! ph34r.gif

Like you, i just don't understand the angst towards this.

 

I do agree with Cezanne, that caches i enjoy are becoming rarer and rarer. I would certainly hate to see good ones go away for no reason. But at the same time, i feel that the algorithm offers up more positives than it does negatives. Sure, it'll catch a few of these good caches but i feel that they'll be few and far between. It's not the end of the world when it does catch a good cache since the procedure in place gives owners that care, plenty of time to take care of business. Reviewers aren't gung ho on archiving caches in the first place so i figure a lonely cache on top of a mountain showing one DNF probably isn't going anywhere for a while.

 

As a cache owner who places more challenging caches in out of the way places, i can safely say that the geocaching health score algorithm does not affect my decision to place tough caches.

Link to comment

Why wait until a NA is necessary to start the process of weeding out bad caches? What's wrong with identifying them early and getting them off the map?

This is caching 101. The NM tells the CO there's a problem and gives him time to react. The NA tells the reviewer that the CO didn't react. I think the amount of time spent is both reasonable and fair.

Yes and if everybody used them, correctly, we wouldn't be here talking about it.

I'm not actually convinced we wouldn't be talking about this if everyone used NAs correctly. After all, NAs are used correctly in my area, yet someone posted a "this is what I'm talking about" list of 5 caches near me, and none of them were serious problems. More to the point, I know from experience that if they become problems, someone will post an NA.

 

When we started this conversation, I was imagining that there were many areas with lots of trash caches, but when they brought up as evidence of this pervasive problem the fact that 8% of the caches in my area have the maintenance flag set, I had to reconsider what's going on. That evidence doesn't convince me because my experience is that 1 in 20 caches with a problem is normal, and the maintenance flag just reflects that those caches are going through the healthy process towards resolution. So I start to wonder whether this is an imaginary scourge. I found it illuminating the hear that Team MicroDot's area's in as good shape as mine. That makes me wonder whether that normal %5 of caches in-process looks a lot worse than it is when you're looking in areas where you haven't found any caches.

 

But even if there's a widespread problem caused by people not filing NAs, that just tells me that people don't understand how to use a good system. I submit that that's a problem that should be addressed. If there are specific areas with lots of bad caches, by all means focus some attention there. But instead the proposal is to scrap the decentralized approach based on NAs and replace it with a system where reviewers are brought in by using a one-size-fits-all standard.

Link to comment

I do agree with Cezanne, that caches i enjoy are becoming rarer and rarer. I would certainly hate to see good ones go away for no reason. But at the same time, i feel that the algorithm offers up more positives than it does negatives. Sure, it'll catch a few of these good caches but i feel that they'll be few and far between. It's not the end of the world when it does catch a good cache since the procedure in place gives owners that care, plenty of time to take care of business.

 

I do think that if the reviewers in my country started to make use of this tool, it would change a lot. May I ask whether the reviewers in your area right now do sweeps for NM attributes? (They do not need to do that - some do, some don't.)

 

I know that the reviewers do not archive a cache within a few days (right now I'm waiting for soon a month for a response to a NA log I filed). I also know that owner feedback can avoid many archivals.

 

However I'm concerned about situations where this does not apply.

I'm getting desperate. I'm blamed for repeating myself, but then the same sorts of arguments are repeated when it comes to my concerns so that I try to explain again that I'm aware of the process but that it does not resolve the issues I see.

 

If a cache in good condition does not have an active owner (or at least not an owner who is any more motivated to fuss around with formalities which have not played a role when they started to geocache) the owner will not react and so the cache will be gone soon when the system discussed here is used everywheree.

If a cache owner decides to archive a cache due to being frustrated by the text of the mail as it is sent right now, it does not play the slightest role that the involved reviewer would not archive the cache. Before the reviewer could do anything, the cache is long archived.

 

I do understand that the system is both helpful for the reviewers and for many participants here. But please respect that I know the situation in my area the best among those who write here and I'm convinced that the system in the current form has more negative sides than positive ones in my area and even more so for me - every single cache that appeals to me is very valuable for me. If I lose 10 caches, that's much and very hurtful. There are tons of new caches out there with fresh log books, fresh containers - however I enjoy only few of them while among the older ones the proportion I enjoy is much higher. Apparently most cachers here select caches via flags, parameters, attributes etc.

I select them after having looked at every single cache page in my area. I often decide deliberately to visit a cache where I know that the container is in bad condition but the cache route is something I enjoy while those tip top containers are boring for me and I only do them if there is nothing else. I do not expect the majority around here to understand this, but it needs to be taken into account. All what is written here will not change my mind that for cachers like me there is hardly anything positive about the system but there are a lot of negative aspects.

 

 

YOu wrote that the health score algorithm does not influence your way of hiding caches. May I ask whether it influences your way of logging in case you happen to log DNFs also when it is certainly not about the cache having a problem.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'm not actually convinced we wouldn't be talking about this if everyone used NAs correctly.

 

It seems you mean, if everyone used NAs as you would deem proper--which is rarely, and only when someone won't prop up or throw down a cache.

 

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=57

 

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.

 

Link to comment

But instead the proposal is to scrap the decentralized approach based on NAs and replace it with a system where reviewers are brought in by using a one-size-fits-all standard.

 

Is that the plan now? I must have missed that memo.

 

As far as I knew we were talking about a system which could help to fill the void left by real people neglecting to make proper use of the NM / NA system.

 

Sometimes, in quiet moments, I start to wonder if some of us are in a parallel thread :unsure:

Link to comment

But instead the proposal is to scrap the decentralized approach based on NAs and replace it with a system where reviewers are brought in by using a one-size-fits-all standard.

 

Is that the plan now? I must have missed that memo.

 

As far as I knew we were talking about a system which could help to fill the void left by real people neglecting to make proper use of the NM / NA system.

 

Maybe this could be the explanation: Different people define proper use of the NM/NA system differently. When I do not post a NM log or NA log it is a conscious decision and is not taking place because I'm worried about what might happen or what others might think if I logged NM or NA.

I do not use NM and NA in a one-size-fits-all standard either and the system is at least to some extent designed to achieve something which I do not like to be seen filled.

 

I agree with you on caches like the one you posted photos of but I would disagree with you on many other cases that are also target of the system.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
If a cache in good condition does not have an active owner (or at least not an owner who is any more motivated to fuss around with formalities which have not played a role when they started to geocache) the owner will not react and so the cache will be gone soon when the system discussed here is used everywheree.

How will the cache "be gone"?

The only ultimate outcome, no longer directly influenced by the algorithm, is that a reviewer has looked at the "good condition cache" having no active owner, and has decided for themselves that the cache should undergo the due process towards archival.

Do you consider that a "bad thing"?

Everything about that is precisely the standard of geocaching environment set up in the guidelines. Regardless of cache condition, a cache owner has to responsibly maintain their caches. If they are not active, then they are essentially abandoning their caches and forfeiting their ownership. Caches of an inactive owner no longer have any form of "right" to remain active, regardless of condition. So IF a reviewer of such a cache deems said cache worthy of eventual archival, barring any restorative circumstances, then that is the way it must be. I'm sorry if you don't like that. But it's also so unbelievably rare in the grand scheme of things that I seriously doubt it'll affect your life at all. But it will help towards maintaining the environmentally friendly integrity of this physical-container-sitting-out-in-nature game.

 

Again, the only "good" caches that would get archived in any way due to influence by this algorithm, are those that have not been reported to a reviewer by a human, which obtain a misleadingly low health score (ie, are in good findable condition), which have progressed through the same due process and human judgement as all other reviewed caches, and still be deemed as no longer up to the minimum standard of cache placement Groundspeak wishes to be responsible for on their public website. And if that's something you can't respect, then perhaps another pastime or another website for this pastime would better suit you.

Link to comment

I'm not actually convinced we wouldn't be talking about this if everyone used NAs correctly.

It seems you mean, if everyone used NAs as you would deem proper--which is rarely, and only when someone won't prop up or throw down a cache.

This is ridiculous. I think everyone should use NAs as they deem proper. If I disagree with their use, we can talk about it, but it's not up to me to dictate what they do.

 

Anyway, let's not talk about my personal foibles. I was responding to someone else that positing a correct way to use NAs. I took "correct" in the way that I would mean it, which is, "When you think the cache needs to be archived", but now that you bring it up, they may have meant, "When I think the cache needs to be archived".

Edited by dprovan
Link to comment

I'm not actually convinced we wouldn't be talking about this if everyone used NAs correctly.

 

It seems you mean, if everyone used NAs as you would deem proper--which is rarely, and only when someone won't prop up or throw down a cache.

 

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=57

 

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.

 

 

What are you talking about? Do you even know?

Link to comment

But instead the proposal is to scrap the decentralized approach based on NAs and replace it with a system where reviewers are brought in by using a one-size-fits-all standard.

Is that the plan now? I must have missed that memo.

 

As far as I knew we were talking about a system which could help to fill the void left by real people neglecting to make proper use of the NM / NA system.

We are talking about a universal system to identify which caches should be archived. It trumps the existing NA based system, so I consider the NA system scrapped in the sense that NAs only come into play when they get a cache deleted before it gets flagged for deletion by a bad health score.

 

You think it will only fill a void and everything else will remain the same, but I see no reason to think anyone will bother to post NAs once everyone understands that caches will get archived anyway even without user input.

Link to comment
We are talking about a universal system to identify which caches should be archived.

...er...

I thought it was an automated system that alerts cache owners about potential problems with their cache, and also helps reviewers by drawing attention to such caches first using an arbitrarily assigned 'score'.

Beyond that, it's all human interaction, as it is currently.

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

Huh? Do you mean the cache I DNFed the other day because of the nearby muggle on a lawnmower, and then found when I went back the next day, would still be considered unhealthy because the CO didn't visit the cache and log an OM saying he'd "fixed" the problem? What's the CO supposed to do, kill the lawnmower man?

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

Huh? Do you mean the cache I DNFed the other day because of the nearby muggle on a lawnmower, and then found when I went back the next day, would still be considered unhealthy because the CO didn't visit the cache and log an OM saying he'd "fixed" the problem? What's the CO supposed to do, kill the lawnmower man?

 

I think we are at cross purposes, possibly a mix-up in the quoting - I don't know.

 

At the bare minimum your find cancels your DNF in terms of points scored so I'm not sure why you're bringing the CO or an OM up.

Link to comment
We are talking about a universal system to identify which caches should be archived.

...er...

I thought it was an automated system that alerts cache owners about potential problems with their cache, and also helps reviewers by drawing attention to such caches first using an arbitrarily assigned 'score'.

Beyond that, it's all human interaction, as it is currently.

 

No - you've got it all wrong - we're clearly talking about Skynet here - this is it where it all begins and before you know it we'll all be living underground in fear for our lives :ph34r:

 

It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead! :o

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

Huh? Do you mean the cache I DNFed the other day because of the nearby muggle on a lawnmower, and then found when I went back the next day, would still be considered unhealthy because the CO didn't visit the cache and log an OM saying he'd "fixed" the problem? What's the CO supposed to do, kill the lawnmower man?

 

I think we are at cross purposes, possibly a mix-up in the quoting - I don't know.

 

At the bare minimum your find cancels your DNF in terms of points scored so I'm not sure why you're bringing the CO or an OM up.

I initially pondered whether a found log would wipe away the negative score of preceding DNFs, NYPaddleCacher I think was saying it should take an OM log to erase the effect of DNFs, then I read your response as saying it'd need both an OM and a Found It! to do that. So yes, I think the quoting might have become muddled somewhere along the line.

 

In my opinion, if a cache has no outstanding NMs (or NAs) and the last log was a find, that should be sufficient prima facie evidence to say the cache is in good health, regardless of any prior history of DNFs. If the algorithm is only looking at log types and not their content, it shouldn't be trying to speculate on false finds or throwdowns.

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

Huh? Do you mean the cache I DNFed the other day because of the nearby muggle on a lawnmower, and then found when I went back the next day, would still be considered unhealthy because the CO didn't visit the cache and log an OM saying he'd "fixed" the problem? What's the CO supposed to do, kill the lawnmower man?

 

I think we are at cross purposes, possibly a mix-up in the quoting - I don't know.

 

At the bare minimum your find cancels your DNF in terms of points scored so I'm not sure why you're bringing the CO or an OM up.

I initially pondered whether a found log would wipe away the negative score of preceding DNFs, NYPaddleCacher I think was saying it should take an OM log to erase the effect of DNFs, then I read your response as saying it'd need both an OM and a Found It! to do that. So yes, I think the quoting might have become muddled somewhere along the line.

 

In my opinion, if a cache has no outstanding NMs (or NAs) and the last log was a find, that should be sufficient prima facie evidence to say the cache is in good health, regardless of any prior history of DNFs. If the algorithm is only looking at log types and not their content, it shouldn't be trying to speculate on false finds or throwdowns.

 

Too lazy to read back through but I think I suggested an OM alone shouldn't necessarily cancel out an NM. A Found It after the OM would help to set the seal that the OM had actually taken place, rather than being an armchair OM - UNLESS that Found It was immediately followed by a NM.

 

I don't believe that a single find, by itself should cancel out multiple DNF's. I pointed to the Found It = Didn't Find It thread to show why I think that way.

 

Does that help at all? (I don't mean 'does that help you to agree' - just 'does that help to clear up any confusion / ambiguity).

Link to comment

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

 

I would hope that an owner maintenance log would reset the score if several DNF logs lowered (is a low or high score an indicator of poor health).

 

OM followed by a Found It would be a better / more trustworthy measure that the cache had been maintained I think.

Huh? Do you mean the cache I DNFed the other day because of the nearby muggle on a lawnmower, and then found when I went back the next day, would still be considered unhealthy because the CO didn't visit the cache and log an OM saying he'd "fixed" the problem? What's the CO supposed to do, kill the lawnmower man?

 

I think we are at cross purposes, possibly a mix-up in the quoting - I don't know.

 

At the bare minimum your find cancels your DNF in terms of points scored so I'm not sure why you're bringing the CO or an OM up.

I initially pondered whether a found log would wipe away the negative score of preceding DNFs, NYPaddleCacher I think was saying it should take an OM log to erase the effect of DNFs, then I read your response as saying it'd need both an OM and a Found It! to do that. So yes, I think the quoting might have become muddled somewhere along the line.

 

In my opinion, if a cache has no outstanding NMs (or NAs) and the last log was a find, that should be sufficient prima facie evidence to say the cache is in good health, regardless of any prior history of DNFs. If the algorithm is only looking at log types and not their content, it shouldn't be trying to speculate on false finds or throwdowns.

 

Too lazy to read back through but I think I suggested an OM alone shouldn't necessarily cancel out an NM. A Found It after the OM would help to set the seal that the OM had actually taken place, rather than being an armchair OM - UNLESS that Found It was immediately followed by a NM.

 

I don't believe that a single find, by itself should cancel out multiple DNF's. I pointed to the Found It = Didn't Find It thread to show why I think that way.

 

Does that help at all? (I don't mean 'does that help you to agree' - just 'does that help to clear up any confusion / ambiguity).

I think so, but I still disagree that the algorithm should be treating Found It logs with suspicion. Sure, some people log false finds or place throwdowns, but without looking at the content of the logs, the algorithm has no basis at all for assuming that's happened, or even that some arbitrary percentage of Found It logs are illegitimate.

Link to comment

I think so, but I still disagree that the algorithm should be treating Found It logs with suspicion. Sure, some people log false finds or place throwdowns, but without looking at the content of the logs, the algorithm has no basis at all for assuming that's happened, or even that some arbitrary percentage of Found It logs are illegitimate.

 

The algorithm has no basis at all for assuming trusting that anything has happened.

 

The algorithm has to work on the basis of calculated probability.

 

When I came to the conclusions I came to it was after imagining myself in the reviewer's shoes and how I, based on the logs alone, would come to any conclusions with any degree of confidence.

 

Let me see if I can find the bit where I explained my reasoning (sorry if you've already ready it) yes - here it is:

 

That would depend on the detail in the logs.

 

Let's say the first nm says that the box has a broken lid and is soaking wet and filthy.

 

The CO posts an armchair OM log.

 

The next finder logs NM and says that the box has a broken lid and is soaking wet and filthy.

 

This would be complex for an algorithm to pick up but a human reviewer would spot the armchair OM easily.

 

If the algorithm spots this pattern in the logs the resultant score flags the cache up for the reviewer's attention who has the option to agree it or override it with a beneficial score.

Link to comment
The algorithm has no basis at all for assuming trusting that anything has happened.
So the algorithm can trust my DNF log, but when I come back and try again, it can't trust my Find log to erase any negative effects of my DNF log?

 

So the algorithm can send me email telling me to visit my cache (or archive it), but it can't trust my OM log indicating that I did just that?

 

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

Link to comment
The algorithm has no basis at all for assuming trusting that anything has happened.
So the algorithm can trust my DNF log, but when I come back and try again, it can't trust my Find log to erase any negative effects of my DNF log?

 

So the algorithm can send me email telling me to visit my cache (or archive it), but it can't trust my OM log indicating that I did just that?

 

"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

 

Let's put that back in full context:

 

The algorithm has no basis at all for assuming trusting that anything has happened.

 

The algorithm has to work on the basis of calculated probability.

 

That's better. That's what I said and that's what I meant.

Link to comment

I think so, but I still disagree that the algorithm should be treating Found It logs with suspicion. Sure, some people log false finds or place throwdowns, but without looking at the content of the logs, the algorithm has no basis at all for assuming that's happened, or even that some arbitrary percentage of Found It logs are illegitimate.

 

The algorithm has no basis at all for assuming trusting that anything has happened.

 

The algorithm has to work on the basis of calculated probability.

 

When I came to the conclusions I came to it was after imagining myself in the reviewer's shoes and how I, based on the logs alone, would come to any conclusions with any degree of confidence.

 

Let me see if I can find the bit where I explained my reasoning (sorry if you've already ready it) yes - here it is:

 

That would depend on the detail in the logs.

 

Let's say the first nm says that the box has a broken lid and is soaking wet and filthy.

 

The CO posts an armchair OM log.

 

The next finder logs NM and says that the box has a broken lid and is soaking wet and filthy.

 

This would be complex for an algorithm to pick up but a human reviewer would spot the armchair OM easily.

 

If the algorithm spots this pattern in the logs the resultant score flags the cache up for the reviewer's attention who has the option to agree it or override it with a beneficial score.

In that case, if the pattern of NM - armchair OM - NM continues, someone should log an NA to bring it to the reviewer's attention. I'd think this would be such a rare case that the algorithm shouldn't even be considering it; it goes way beyond what the algorithm is purportedly for.

 

In the case of just DNFs without any hint of an NM, it's even more nebulous. The algorithm is assuming the worst about a DNF log (i.e. the cache is missing) but most of the time that's not true. Even if there's a string of DNFs that might hint more strongly at a missing cache, without reading the content that's still just speculation. A subsequent Found It! log, taken at face value, ought to override that speculation. If the Found It log is genuine, the cache cannot be missing. That string of DNFs might just have been a random clump or happened because it was school holidays and there were lots of muggles about - that's far more likely in my experience than a fake Found It log, and the algorithm shouldn't be speculating about this sort of thing if it's not reading log content.

 

Any statistical assumptions about the validity of Found It logs will vary enormously from region to region, town to town, person to person, and on caches that get few finds (these are the ones the algorithm seems to be struggling with) such statistics are meaningless anyway.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...