Jump to content

Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

When I hear about CO who already has more caches than they can comfortably maintain adopting a load more from another cacher I worry that they might sink under the weight of their own addiction :(

 

I wonder if the new health score could be leveraged to cut off this avenue of supply so that said caches can be allowed to die a natural death or at least try to make sure that the adopter is able to cope with their new responsibilities?

Link to comment

Other than being about adoption versus placement, is there a reason this couldn't just be part of your other thread? (Or do you just want to see the word "shirkers" in the forum more often?)

 

I mean, I'm all about people coming to the forum to spend 100+ posts talking about the same thing over and over, but I'm not sure we needed an extra thread to do it when there's already a beaten horse we can just re-assault from a different angle.

 

ed: sp

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

Other than being about adoption versus placement, is there a reason this couldn't just be part of your other thread? (Or do you just want to see the word "shirkers" in the forum more often?)

 

I mean, I'm all about people coming to the forum to spend 100+ posts talking about the same thing over and over, but I'm not sure we needed an extra thread to do it when there's already a beaten horse we can just re-assault from a different angle.

 

ed: sp

 

I wasn't quite sure what to do for the best.

 

In the end I decided this was a different and more specific issue and deserved a thread of its own.

Link to comment

So you are suggesting that instead of allowing someone you've identified as a shirker to adopt caches so that they may or may not survive, the caches should just be archived right away? How is that better?

 

I don't agree with your idea that a cache in bad shape is worse than no cache at all, but at least I see the logic in it. But there's no logic to arguing that no cache at all is better than a cache that might possibly at some future time not be maintained up to your standards.

Link to comment

So you are suggesting that instead of allowing someone you've identified as a shirker to adopt caches so that they may or may not survive, the caches should just be archived right away? How is that better?

 

I don't agree with your idea that a cache in bad shape is worse than no cache at all, but at least I see the logic in it. But there's no logic to arguing that no cache at all is better than a cache that might possibly at some future time not be maintained up to your standards.

 

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order :)

Link to comment

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order :)

 

First, quite often caches are adopted by cachers with already many caches because no one else wants to take them over. Many newer cachers prefer to own no caches.

Second, one always can adopt caches with a new account and many will actually do that regardless of their maintenance policy. I would never adopt a cache using my standard account.

Link to comment

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order :)

 

First, quite often caches are adopted by cachers with already many caches because no one else wants to take them over. Many newer cachers prefer to own no caches.

Second, one always can adopt caches with a new account and many will actually do that regardless of their maintenance policy. I would never adopt a cache using my standard account.

 

So let's also allow adoptions only by cachers who have a proven track record of being able to maintain their caches to a high standard using their known player account.

 

If nobody wants to adopt them it's time to let them go.

Link to comment

So let's also allow adoptions only by cachers who have a proven track record of being able to maintain their caches to a high standard using their known player account.

 

Then I guess not many cachers will adopt a cache at all.

 

I never ever would use my own account because I do not want to sell a cache as mine which isn't and I would not want to take over the FPs awarded to someone else's cache. I know many others who feel the same way.

 

There can also be many other reasons which provide an argument to use different accounts - e.g. team hides, team adoptions of large cache projects, the wish to separate incoming mails etc

 

I cannot see any reason to restrict the flexibility of the majority to solve some local problems which can be solved also in another way.

 

Moreover, I have an issue with your "to a high standard". That's subjective and also depends on the type of cache in my opinion. If the log book of a cache that gets found when it is raining is damp, I would not see this as a lower standard, others might disagree. Who is going to define which standard is required?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

It makes no difference how you make the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order :)

I see no reason to think more than one person will want to adopt any given cache to begin with, and, regardless, saying that you will only kill caches when there are no other adopters available doesn't make the argument any more reasonable.

 

But the real problem is thinking that a worse chance of remaining in good order is a reason to archive a cache that's currently in good order under any conditions. Most caches go missing or have other problem at some point. Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

Link to comment

Someone I've identified? I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.

It makes no difference how you make the identification.

 

As I said - I'm not making the identification.

 

That's why another option afforded by this suggested measure is to allow the caches to be adopted by someone else, someone who can cope comfortably with their maintenance, so that those caches have a better chance of remaining in good order :)

I see no reason to think more than one person will want to adopt any given cache to begin with, and, regardless, saying that you will only kill caches when there are no other adopters available doesn't make the argument any more reasonable.

 

But the real problem is thinking that a worse chance of remaining in good order is a reason to archive a cache that's currently in good order under any conditions. Most caches go missing or have other problem at some point. Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

 

I have experienced situations where multiple individuals stepped forward to adopt particular caches on more than one occasion.

 

Under the current system caches need an owner to maintain them, which I think is a good thing :)

 

The guidelines are quite clear about the actions a CO who no longer wishes to maintain their cache(s) should take.

Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.
Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.

 

I actually think this is one area where the Health Score mechanism could be allowed to to grant or revoke adoption permissions based on statistical health data.

 

As always, should the need arise, a volunteer reviewer or Groundspeak Lackey could override the automated decision.

 

Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

Link to comment

When I hear about CO who already has more caches than they can comfortably maintain adopting a load more from another cacher I worry that they might sink under the weight of their own addiction :(

 

I wonder if the new health score could be leveraged to cut off this avenue of supply so that said caches can be allowed to die a natural death or at least try to make sure that the adopter is able to cope with their new responsibilities?

 

I agree completely.

 

The way it is now, anyone can adopt. They don't have to go through a review process. I could adopt caches anywhere in the world, as long as someone wants to give their listing to me.

I know of cachers who adopt old listings so they won't die. They never intend to maintain those caches. The adopter expects a pat on the back for helping the community by keeping the listing (and/or the coveted D/T combo) alive.

They will fight reviewers if DNFs/NMs start to pile up and they get a reviewer note/disable.

I wonder how reviewers feel about it? Especially when those maintenance shirkers and addictive cache owners fight with them over a reviewer disable.

Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.

 

I actually think this is one area where the Health Score mechanism could be allowed to to grant or revoke adoption permissions based on statistical health data.

 

As always, should the need arise, a volunteer reviewer or Groundspeak Lackey could override the automated decision.

 

Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

The Health Score mechanism is known to flag COs as maintenance shirkers on the basis of just a few DNFs that in all likelihood had nothing to do with cache maintenance. I think it's a poor judge of character.

Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.

 

I actually think this is one area where the Health Score mechanism could be allowed to to grant or revoke adoption permissions based on statistical health data.

 

As always, should the need arise, a volunteer reviewer or Groundspeak Lackey could override the automated decision.

 

Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

 

So there is a cache owner that has a few high D/T caches. Because they all required quite a hike to get to they're not found very often, and the high difficulty rating means, by definition, they're likely going to accumulate quite a few DNFs. Rather than put out a bunch of cookie cutter hides, the CO paid attention to detail, using good containers, placing the caches in unique locations, and demonstrates some creativity for how each cache is hidden. Because of the high D/T rating they end up with an overall poor health score.

 

There is another cachers that got a good deal on preforms, and has placed a few dozen of them in every lamp post they can find that is more than 528' from another cache. As a result of the low D/T rating, the caches rarely get a DNF and due to the drive by nature of the locations, they get visited frequently. This cacher welcomes maintenance from others and if it goes missing will let others just throw down a replacement so that potential finders never have to log a DNF.

 

Which one of these cachers would be a better adopter of caches that come up for adoption?

 

Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.

 

I actually think this is one area where the Health Score mechanism could be allowed to to grant or revoke adoption permissions based on statistical health data.

 

As always, should the need arise, a volunteer reviewer or Groundspeak Lackey could override the automated decision.

 

Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

The Health Score mechanism is known to flag COs as maintenance shirkers on the basis of just a few DNFs that in all likelihood had nothing to do with cache maintenance. I think it's a poor judge of character.

 

Is it?

 

I have a dim recollection of a couple of isolated incidents being referenced here on the forums. Beyond that I've no evidence one way or the other.

 

I seem to remember a Groundspeak representative telling us that one particular incident had been the subject of a lot of attention, and that the Health Score was proving to be a useful tool for reviewers - so it can't be all bad.

Link to comment
I'm thinking more that the Health Score mechanism will handle the identification.
I'm thinking that it would be better for the Health Score mechanism to remain purely advisory, and for it not to ban/archive/disable anything or anyone automatically. Actually, I'd prefer that it become even more obviously advisory, for the email sent as a result of the Health Score mechanism to include a response that is appropriate for cache listings that are false positives, instead of just the current "visit or archive" options.

 

I actually think this is one area where the Health Score mechanism could be allowed to to grant or revoke adoption permissions based on statistical health data.

 

As always, should the need arise, a volunteer reviewer or Groundspeak Lackey could override the automated decision.

 

Geocachers should accept and deal with that, not run from the possibility in horror.

 

So there is a cache owner that has a few high D/T caches.

 

I see no reason why this couldn't be factored in i.e. a cacher with fewer hides probably has greater maintenance capacity than a cacher with lots of hides.

 

Because they all required quite a hike to get to they're not found very often, and the high difficulty rating means, by definition, they're likely going to accumulate quite a few DNFs. Rather than put out a bunch of cookie cutter hides, the CO paid attention to detail, using good containers, placing the caches in unique locations, and demonstrates some creativity for how each cache is hidden. Because of the high D/T rating they end up with an overall poor health score.

 

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

 

There is another cachers that got a good deal on preforms, and has placed a few dozen of them in every lamp post they can find that is more than 528' from another cache. As a result of the low D/T rating, the caches rarely get a DNF and due to the drive by nature of the locations, they get visited frequently. This cacher welcomes maintenance from others and if it goes missing will let others just throw down a replacement so that potential finders never have to log a DNF.

 

Gotta admit - the maintenance shirker you describe here might not be as easy to detect algorithmically - unless there are other metrics that can be factored in?

Link to comment

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

We can do more than speculate, as we know of fairly recent instances where caches have been pinged for just one or a few DNFs. No NMs / NAs, outstanding or otherwise - they were brand new caches - just DNFs that had nothing to do with maintenance.

Link to comment

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

We can do more than speculate, as we know of fairly recent instances where caches have been pinged for just one or a few DNFs. No NMs / NAs, outstanding or otherwise - they were brand new caches - just DNFs that had nothing to do with maintenance.

 

How many instances were there?

 

Did they trigger a review of the algorithm?

 

Is it still an issue or has it been dealt with?

Link to comment

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

We can do more than speculate, as we know of fairly recent instances where caches have been pinged for just one or a few DNFs. No NMs / NAs, outstanding or otherwise - they were brand new caches - just DNFs that had nothing to do with maintenance.

 

How many instances were there?

 

Did they trigger a review of the algorithm?

 

Is it still an issue or has it been dealt with?

In addition to the one I got, there was a similar incident (with 2 DNFs on a brand new cache, if I recall) reported on the forums in January and some others dating back earlier. Yes, it might have been reworked since then, we don't know as it's top secret, but its reliance on DNFs as a metric of cache health will always be problematic.

Link to comment

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

We can do more than speculate, as we know of fairly recent instances where caches have been pinged for just one or a few DNFs. No NMs / NAs, outstanding or otherwise - they were brand new caches - just DNFs that had nothing to do with maintenance.

 

How many instances were there?

 

Did they trigger a review of the algorithm?

 

Is it still an issue or has it been dealt with?

In addition to the one I got, there was a similar incident (with 2 DNFs on a brand new cache, if I recall) reported on the forums in January and some others dating back earlier. Yes, it might have been reworked since then, we don't know as it's top secret, but its reliance on DNFs as a metric of cache health will always be problematic.

 

So possibly not very many?

 

And the algorithm could have been adjusted by now to handle this better? (The beauty of these things is that they can be modified / refined / tweaked at will)

 

If you're not privy to the inner workings of the Health Score system, or how it might be improved upon in the future, how do you know its reliance on use of DNF's as a metric will always be problematic?

Link to comment

We can only speculate on how the current algorithm might work today and how it might weight the various available metrics. The senario you describe though doesn't portray a CO with lots of unattended NM's / NA's or, at the upper extreme, caches archived by reviewer through lack of CO attention so I would hope the lack of these negatives would have a positive impact on the health score of the caches described.

We can do more than speculate, as we know of fairly recent instances where caches have been pinged for just one or a few DNFs. No NMs / NAs, outstanding or otherwise - they were brand new caches - just DNFs that had nothing to do with maintenance.

 

How many instances were there?

 

Did they trigger a review of the algorithm?

 

Is it still an issue or has it been dealt with?

In addition to the one I got, there was a similar incident (with 2 DNFs on a brand new cache, if I recall) reported on the forums in January and some others dating back earlier. Yes, it might have been reworked since then, we don't know as it's top secret, but its reliance on DNFs as a metric of cache health will always be problematic.

 

So possibly not very many?

 

And the algorithm could have been adjusted by now to handle this better? (The beauty of these things is that they can be modified / refined / tweaked at will)

 

If you're not privy to the inner workings of the Health Score system, or how it might be improved upon in the future, how do you know its reliance on use of DNF's as a metric will always be problematic?

Simply because DNFs happen for a whole lot of reasons other than maintenance - I had one just last week saying they'd abandoned their search because of failing light, approaching rain and swarms of mosquitoes. While statistically you might say that 30% or whatever of DNFs are due to missing caches, those statistics are meaningless when applied to an individual cache. On any one cache, every DNF is irrelevant until the one when it actually is missing, and the algorithm has no way of knowing which one that is.

 

If a cache has a suspicious string of DNFs, someone in the community needs to have the guts to log an NM. Then, if there's no response from the CO, the Health Score system can ping away to its heart's content. I have no problem with that at all. It's when the cache's only misdemeanour is to have some DNFs and the algorithm decides that x percentage of these must be about lack of maintenance, even if they're all about mosquitoes, that it comes unstuck and will keep on coming unstuck.

Link to comment

All adoptions do is continue to block the locals from finding and placing geocaches. Archive the cache, then allow another player to place a geocache near that same area, which will allow local cachers to have something to find.

 

Maybe that's true for some caches or maybe even some areas. It's certainly not true in the generality implied by your statement.

I know examples of superb caches which have got adopted out to rescue them for the local cachers and which have a very profitable "blocking index" (they might cover many km of distance and block much less area than much shorter caches).

 

Not every cache is a short and easy traditional so that all locals get to visit a cache very soon after it got hidden and not all local communities are static so that hardly any new cachers enter geocaching.

 

It can be quite hard to find cachers who are willing to adopt caches that are more difficult to maintain anyway. For example, I'm still trying to find cachers living close enough to a number of very nice caches at locations which are typically not easy to reach and who would be willing to take over these caches. They do not block anything - the area is not cache dense at all and if the caches get archived, there will be no new caches hidden there and it would not make much sense anyhow. For example if a cache is hidden at a hidden rock face why hide it 100m away? Why hide a new cache at exactly the same location when the old one is ok and by far not all cachers have found the old cache?

Link to comment

and the algorithm has no way of knowing which one that is.

 

I think I've made this point before - the algorithm has no way of knowing anything - it's simply a statistical tool which flags selected patterns which may indicate a problem.

 

And in some regards that algorithm could be just as good as human judgements formed on the basis of the available data. In some cases the algorithm might even be better - or at least save human labour in arriving at a conclusion.

Link to comment

The Health Score mechanism is known to flag COs as maintenance shirkers on the basis of just a few DNFs that in all likelihood had nothing to do with cache maintenance. I think it's a poor judge of character.

 

Uhh... to the best of my knowledge (from dicussions here) cache owners are not flagged as maintenance shirkers. Geocaches are flagged (do we even know this?) and their owners are emailed. That's a point to clarify because the system does not suddenly label a person as a potentially negligent owner. A reviewer may (incorrectly) interpret the communication with the owner as evidence that they are a 'shirker', but no the Health Score mechanism does not set this flag.

 

And on that note, I think the HS system ca be used to provide an advisory about a cache owner for the reviewer to take into consideration when an adoption is requested, but the reviewer - as usual - has to make the final call. IF there's some stat with a CO about 'flagged' caches, or how many communications are made, then it could be informative, but not definitive. A reviewer may be able to see some type of average cache health score across their owned caches, but again, I would be against any sort of absolute minimum to qualify a person for adoption. It's faaar too subjective with unknown factors.

Link to comment

The Health Score mechanism is known to flag COs as maintenance shirkers on the basis of just a few DNFs that in all likelihood had nothing to do with cache maintenance. I think it's a poor judge of character.

 

Uhh... to the best of my knowledge (from dicussions here) cache owners are not flagged as maintenance shirkers. Geocaches are flagged (do we even know this?) and their owners are emailed. That's a point to clarify because the system does not suddenly label a person as a potentially negligent owner. A reviewer may (incorrectly) interpret the communication with the owner as evidence that they are a 'shirker', but no the Health Score mechanism does not set this flag.

 

And on that note, I think the HS system ca be used to provide an advisory about a cache owner for the reviewer to take into consideration when an adoption is requested, but the reviewer - as usual - has to make the final call. IF there's some stat with a CO about 'flagged' caches, or how many communications are made, then it could be informative, but not definitive. A reviewer may be able to see some type of average cache health score across their owned caches, but again, I would be against any sort of absolute minimum to qualify a person for adoption. It's faaar too subjective with unknown factors.

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

Link to comment

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

D'oh! Yes, goes to show how much I've adopted or given up for adoption :P

 

Which backs up this:

 

The way it is now, anyone can adopt. They don't have to go through a review process. I could adopt caches anywhere in the world, as long as someone wants to give their listing to me.

 

I had believed that for cache publication a cacher must have a maintenance plan in place and must be able to demonstrate this if requested.

 

Adoption seems to bypass this requirement as far as I know.

Link to comment

 

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

 

Indeed and that's the key issue. What Team Microdot has in mind would involve that the system automatically blocks cachers from being allowed to adopt caches (including all cache owners who do not yet own a cache).

I would not want to have such a system not even if there existed a way to appeal against such bans where someone human would have a look at the situation and unblock the user in certain cases.

Link to comment

 

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

 

Indeed and that's the key issue. What Team Microdot has in mind would involve that the system automatically blocks cachers from being allowed to adopt caches (including all cache owners who do not yet own a cache).

I would not want to have such a system not even if there existed a way to appeal against such bans where someone human would have a look at the situation and unblock the user in certain cases.

 

As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line:

 

There oughta be a law!

 

When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes:

 

There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals.

 

Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around:

 

Oh, geez.

 

And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun.

 

And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic:

 

Nope.

 

At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment

As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line:

 

There oughta be a law!

 

When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes:

 

There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals.

 

Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around:

 

Oh, geez.

 

And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun.

 

And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic:

 

Nope.

 

At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris.

 

All sounds quite idyllic - almost double rainbow territory B)

 

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

Link to comment

As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line:

 

There oughta be a law!

 

When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes:

 

There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals.

 

Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around:

 

Oh, geez.

 

And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun.

 

And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic:

 

Nope.

 

At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris.

 

All sounds quite idyllic - almost double rainbow territory B)

 

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

 

Because, my dear nanospec, it's a passive means to look after things. That players would deign to take on the role of warden in this asylum bothers me more.

Link to comment

As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line:

 

There oughta be a law!

 

When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes:

 

There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals.

 

Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around:

 

Oh, geez.

 

And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun.

 

And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic:

 

Nope.

 

At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris.

 

All sounds quite idyllic - almost double rainbow territory B)

 

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

 

Because, my dear nanospec, it's a passive means to look after things.

 

Cool - I'm glad someone cares enough to look after things B)

Link to comment

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

From the article you linked to:

Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches.

...

If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache.

I suspect the volunteer reviewers had a hand in the creation of the Health Score. It takes a bit of the load off their shoulders, so I could see them advocating for something like this.

 

I just don't see how we can use an automated advisory system - that could never be perfectly-tuned to properly cover all edge-cases - to automatically pass judgement on the maintenance abilities of cache owners.

 

At the risk of raising the ire of the reviewers that read these forums, I would suggest that a better course of action would be reviewer involvement in adoptions. I don't know what it's like in other regions, but the number of adoptions in my area is relatively low, so this shouldn't add too much work. It would just be like dealing with new submissions, but with a smaller subset of guidelines to review.

Link to comment

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

From the article you linked to:

Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches.

...

If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache.

I suspect the volunteer reviewers had a hand in the creation of the Health Score. It takes a bit of the load off their shoulders, so I could see them advocating for something like this.

 

I just don't see how we can use an automated advisory system - that could never be perfectly-tuned to properly cover all edge-cases - to automatically pass judgement on the maintenance abilities of cache owners.

 

At the risk of raising the ire of the reviewers that read these forums, I would suggest that a better course of action would be reviewer involvement in adoptions. I don't know what it's like in other regions, but the number of adoptions in my area is relatively low, so this shouldn't add too much work. It would just be like dealing with new submissions, but with a smaller subset of guidelines to review.

 

A more aggressive approach would likely be less welcome to the majority of cachers. I've had a few caches which were absolutely peachy with Needs Maint or even Should Be Archived logs. I've also tripped over at least two ammo boxes in my travels where were less than obvious hides (pile of leaves sort of thing), one of which had a long string of DNFs. Sometimes the perception of geocachers that a CO should run out and inspect their cache are well founded, others they can be a pain. If you poke COs too many times they'll get grumpy.

 

I observe these notices are not simply flooding the email, even on some of my caches (after the recent rains) which could stand some looking into, and I'm good with that - I already know which I need to look in on and try to make my own schedule without someone standing over me with a club.

 

I think the dot would like to be in the position or egging on the one there to swing the club more often. I see that as less than helpful.

Link to comment

I'm just left wondering why, if all is rosy in the garden, Groundspeak felt compelled to come up with the Geocache Health Score at all.

From the article you linked to:

Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches.

...

If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache.

I suspect the volunteer reviewers had a hand in the creation of the Health Score. It takes a bit of the load off their shoulders, so I could see them advocating for something like this.

 

I just don't see how we can use an automated advisory system - that could never be perfectly-tuned to properly cover all edge-cases - to automatically pass judgement on the maintenance abilities of cache owners.

 

Like the Cache Health Score - it doesn't need to be perfect.

 

In fact - with respect - I'm not sure how or why perfection is being touted as the yardstick of choice when gauging the usefulness of an automated tool.

 

Even a fully manual system wouldn't be perfect - unless Groundspeak were going to send out people to physically check on every single cache - so why should an automated tool be perfect?

 

I would expect that factoring in a metric such as reviewer has been previously forced to archive caches attributed to this CO account, for example, would help.

 

At the risk of raising the ire of the reviewers that read these forums, I would suggest that a better course of action would be reviewer involvement in adoptions. I don't know what it's like in other regions, but the number of adoptions in my area is relatively low, so this shouldn't add too much work. It would just be like dealing with new submissions, but with a smaller subset of guidelines to review.

 

That's another possibility.

 

In fact, considering the fact that, in theory, there's nothing to stop me adopting a cache on the other side of the planet that I'm never going to maintain, I'd have thought that some human intervention might be a good idea - not that I want to create extra work for volunteer reviewers either.

Link to comment

Like the Cache Health Score - it doesn't need to be perfect.

 

In fact - with respect - I'm not sure how or why perfection is being touted as the yardstick of choice when gauging the usefulness of an automated tool.

 

Even a fully manual system wouldn't be perfect - unless Groundspeak were going to send out people to physically check on every single cache - so why should an automated tool be perfect?

I don't expect that it needs to be perfect, but it needs to be as perfect as possible. If there are too many false positives, the amount of work created for reviewers/Lackeys in dealing with these false positives makes it a burden and decreases their ability to deal with other issues. Based on the examples I've seen in the forums (which admittedly are few), there are some cases that are very obviously being handled incorrectly by the algorithm. One would hope that the algorithm is constantly being tweaked based on feedback from cache owners, reviewers, and Lackeys, but we don't know if that's actually occurring.

 

I would expect that factoring in a metric such as reviewer has been previously forced to archive caches attributed to this CO account, for example, would help.

Now this is the kind of thing that I could see being used in an automated system like you propose. In this case, a reviewer has already been involved and the odds of a false-positive are vanishingly-small, so the metric would be far more useful. I'd be all for a system whereby cache owners who had a cache archived by a reviewer for maintenance or guideline issues had the ability to adopt either blocked or had those adoption requests reviewed by a reviewer.

Link to comment

In fact, considering the fact that, in theory, there's nothing to stop me adopting a cache on the other side of the planet that I'm never going to maintain, I'd have thought that some human intervention might be a good idea - not that I want to create extra work for volunteer reviewers either.

Do you have any evidence that abuse of the adoption system is a problem? It's one thing to argue for more work when it's possible you might be solving a problem, but I have no interest at all in a new procedure to stop a problem you can only imagine might happen.

 

Like the Cache Health Score - it doesn't need to be perfect.

It doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be better than nothing. I don't think this is. If such a problem came up, I think GS could step in right now and sort it out. Having specific rules might leave GS with less discretion to handle it.

Link to comment

 

Just a point of clarification - I don't believe a reviewer is currently involved in the adoption process. It is strictly between cachers.

 

Indeed and that's the key issue. What Team Microdot has in mind would involve that the system automatically blocks cachers from being allowed to adopt caches (including all cache owners who do not yet own a cache).

I would not want to have such a system not even if there existed a way to appeal against such bans where someone human would have a look at the situation and unblock the user in certain cases.

 

As soon as I saw this subject I knew I'd find posts like this. This really is a slippery slope to go down, beginning with the classic line:

 

There oughta be a law!

 

When you create a law, rule, statute, condition, etc. there must be a processes, so this becomes:

 

There oughta be a law and more work for people to do to enforce it and handle appeals.

 

Meanwhile, back at the kindhearted and most revered volunteer reviewer's desk there's this thought rattling around:

 

Oh, geez.

 

And up at the lily pad a committee fails to coalesce, largely because they are thinking the same thought. They'd rather be having fun and promoting fun.

 

And out in the field, where the great masses of geocachers roam from dawn to dusk (and beyond) they are mostly of a single mind on the whole topic:

 

Nope.

 

At least, that's the way I see the whole ball of ambergris.

Um, I'm not really sure which is the "post like this" you're referring to - mine or cezanne's. Personally, I don't see any need for more regulation on the adoption process. I was simply pointing out a technical error in thebruce0's post.

Link to comment

In fact, considering the fact that, in theory, there's nothing to stop me adopting a cache on the other side of the planet that I'm never going to maintain, I'd have thought that some human intervention might be a good idea - not that I want to create extra work for volunteer reviewers either.

Do you have any evidence that abuse of the adoption system is a problem? It's one thing to argue for more work when it's possible you might be solving a problem, but I have no interest at all in a new procedure to stop a problem you can only imagine might happen.

 

I've only seen it once. UK caches adopted by a US owner. Unsurprisingly they didn't get maintained.

 

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

Link to comment

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

Often that happens if the caches in the old home region are still ok when the owner moves away and it is in the interest of the community that they stay.

The better solutions would be adoptions though, but then it's contraproductive to make adoptions more complicated.

 

What ultimately counts is that caches are in good order and are taken care of and not so many formalities as you apparently want to introduce.

 

If a cache gets adopted by someone who does not take care of it, the same happens as if the original owner does not take care. In my opinion there are enough ways to deal with this scenario.

Link to comment

 

I've only seen it once. UK caches adopted by a US owner. Unsurprisingly they didn't get maintained.

 

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

On adoption: Yes it is a loophole, but I don't think adoption by someone outside the area is a big problem.

 

On owner changing residence: I have seen lots of cases where a cacher moves a long distance (or even to a new country) and they keep ownership of the caches in their old area (as well as perhaps hiding ones in their new area/country). Most of them monitor their logs, and if they see a cache which appears to be missing, or have major issues, they archive the cache then. I don't see that as a big problem, I guess the only problem case is where the cache is damaged instead of missing, and they can't pick up the damaged cache. Though that also happens with local owners who never change residence.

Link to comment

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

Often that happens if the caches in the old home region are still ok when the owner moves away and it is in the interest of the community that they stay.

The better solutions would be adoptions though, but then it's contraproductive to make adoptions more complicated.

 

What ultimately counts is that caches are in good order and are taken care of and not so many formalities as you apparently want to introduce.

 

Yeah.

 

They weren't maintained though - they were abandoned and fell into disrepair, which renders your point largely moot.

 

Caches adopted by individuals who can comfortably maintain them = lovely B)

 

Caches adopted by individuals who cannot or will not - highly undesirable :(

Link to comment

I've also seen cachers leave the UK, abandoning their UK caches and then start placing caches in their new country of residence.

 

Often that happens if the caches in the old home region are still ok when the owner moves away and it is in the interest of the community that they stay.

The better solutions would be adoptions though, but then it's contraproductive to make adoptions more complicated.

 

What ultimately counts is that caches are in good order and are taken care of and not so many formalities as you apparently want to introduce.

 

They weren't maintained though - they were abandoned and fell into disrepair, which renders your point largely moot.

 

Sorry, but I misunderstood abandoned as I interpreted it as a process where the condition of the caches first was ok and then degraded. Once the condition is bad, the same procedure can take place as for a cache

with an owner who still lives in the area.

 

Caches adopted by individuals who can comfortably maintain them = lovely B)

 

Caches adopted by individuals who cannot or will not - highly undesirable :(

 

Not necessarily individuals. It can also be a group of people who take care and create a joint account for that purpose.

Moreover, you cannot judge with an automatic system whether someone will maintain the caches.

 

I'm willing to take care of every cache I take responsibility for but I'm not willing to provide personal details to a reviewer - it's not their business.

Link to comment

Moreover, you cannot judge with an automatic system whether someone will maintain the caches.

 

Of course you can.

 

No, because it's something that takes place in the future.

 

Silly question - simply for the purposes of nipping this in the bud before it spirals of onto some wacky tangent - can you judge whether you'll continue to breathe in and out for the rest of the day?

Link to comment

before it spirals of onto some wacky tangent

 

It's not at all my intention to deviate from the topic.

 

I do think however that it would be a very bad idea to forbid adoptions by accounts who have no hides so far - regardless of whether this happens for new team accounts or accounts created just for the adoption or

the accounts of cachers who have not yet hidden a cache. Why shouldn't be an adopted one be their first?

 

Of course almost every system can be abused. Like someone from the US can adopt a UK cache (will not happen often I guess), someone from the US can hide a cache in the UK with a new account with home coordinates close to the cache.

In order to avoid that we all would need to send documents which certify where we live which hardly could be a reasonable goal.

 

I have yet to experience a reasonable number of cases where someone adopts caches out of a addiction.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

before it spirals of onto some wacky tangent

 

It's not at all my intention to deviate from the topic.

 

I do think however that it would be a very abd idea to forbid adoptions by accounts who have no hides so far - regardless of whether this happens for new team accounts or accounts created just for the adoption or

the accounts of cachers who have not yet hidden a cache. Why shouldn't be an adopted one be their first?

 

Of course almost every system can be abused. Like someone from the US can adopt a UK cache (will not happen often I guess), someone from the US can hide a cache in the UK with a new account with home coordinates close to the cache.

In order to avoid that we all would need to send documents which certify where we live which hardly could be a reasonable goal.

 

I have yet to experience a reasonable number of cases where someone adopts caches out of a addiction.

 

I'm going to take your refusal to answer the question as your acceptance that judgements about future events (also known as predictions) can be made and are made, every day in every country of the world.

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...