Jump to content

Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers


Team Microdot
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Certainly not your post. I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum.

Link to comment

Huh? If the algorithm hasn't been changed, then it must surely still be a problem, unless you're saying those of us who were pinged by it a few months back... I'm not privy to any statistics since HQ don't publish any

 

So it happened a few months back, to a few people.

 

That's what I thought.

 

I seem to remember keystone indicating that your particular email had been possibly the most spoken about email of its type ever and that it had been the subject of much internal discussion at Groundspeak.

 

I'm inclined to imagine steps were taken to quash this particular false positive when it happened - months ago.

Link to comment
I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum.
It isn't perplexing at all. Caches are not being maintained the way we think they should be maintained. Something Must Be Done™!

 

We must do something.

This is something.

Therefore, we must do this.

Link to comment
I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum.
It isn't perplexing at all. Caches are not being maintained the way we think they should be maintained. Something Must Be Done™!

 

We must do something.

This is something.

Therefore, we must do this.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Yes, and the way I go about it is by taking along a few extra supplies and some paper towels. Good geocacher me, I'll clean up as best I can anything which is wet or messy, jot something relevant in my notepad and post a note to the CO when I do my logs. I certainly don't advocate more interference from TBTB, automated or otherwise. We are players, we can handle this, invoke the local reviewer if need be. That's good enough.

Link to comment

Huh? If the algorithm hasn't been changed, then it must surely still be a problem, unless you're saying those of us who were pinged by it a few months back... I'm not privy to any statistics since HQ don't publish any

 

So it happened a few months back, to a few people.

 

That's what I thought.

 

I seem to remember keystone indicating that your particular email had been possibly the most spoken about email of its type ever and that it had been the subject of much internal discussion at Groundspeak.

 

I'm inclined to imagine steps were taken to quash this particular false positive when it happened - months ago.

Some tweaks were no doubt done then, perhaps to stop it pinging brand new caches which seemed to be a particular weak spot in it at the time, but if the algorithm still rates caches as being in poor health for reasons only that they've had some number or percentage of DNF logs or if they haven't been found for a long time, then there will always be false positives. Whatever pattern of DNFs and time between finds you think might imply a cache is missing, there'll be real-life counter-examples where this isn't the case.

Link to comment

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.

 

Certainly not your post. I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum.

Totally understand your point then and agree.

Link to comment

 

If this tool helps reviewers identify unmaintained caches wouldn't that constitute an improvement in geocaching?

 

This thread is about adoption bans and adoptions restrictions and so the health score tool which should help reviewers is only a side issue.

 

As the OP here I can confirm that the health score tool and potential extensions to it and how those things might assist reviewers are, and always have been completely relevant to this thread.

While the cache health algorithm is helpful to reviewers when identifying individual caches with possible maintenance issues, nothing's been said by any Reviewer or Lackey regarding the relationship between the cache health algorithm and the proposal in this thread regarding adoptions. Please do not take statements by me or other Reviewers in other threads about the health score as a validation that the health score would work as part of the idea proposed here.

Link to comment
If this tool helps reviewers identify unmaintained caches wouldn't that constitute an improvement in geocaching?
If this tool encourages the owners of healthy caches to archive them, then wouldn't that constitute a diminishment in geocaching?

 

If the tool discourages cache owners from creating high D/T caches that would inherently have more DNFs and found less frequently than a 1.5./1.5 caches (simply due to the nagging email) then that, to me, would constitute a degradation in geocaching as well.

 

It shouldn't discourage anyone form doing anything. It's a tool to be used by human reviewers which should be able to distinguish between a bad owner and a relatively difficult cache.

It's also a tool that sends emails to COs telling them they need to perform immediate maintenance, disable the cache until they can, or archive it, with no way to say "hey you got it wrong" other than to ignore it and hope it goes away. And presumably, although this is pure speculation, if the CO does ignore it, somewhere in the system that CO is flagged as a maintenance shirker.

 

If the cache in question is a high T cache that can be difficult or time-consuming to visit at the drop of a hat or at certain times of the year, the CO might well decide, perhaps even out of spite, to archive it.

 

That's not how I understand it. I agree it could be worded better but doing nothing doesn't effect the cache at all. Problem is if you include the option of doing nothing, most maintenance shirkers will do just that.

I see the e-mail geared more toward new cachers which may not fully understand how cache maintenance works.

 

Look, we all agree that the algorithm should and probably has been tweaked and like I said in my last post, Reviewers should be able to look at individual situations and come to the right conclusion.

 

Most of the opposition I've read is more about having to deal with the reminder e-mail and not merits of the actual system or a fear of "big brother" somehow is trying to take over.

Link to comment

 

Look, we all agree that the algorithm should and probably has been tweaked and like I said in my last post, Reviewers should be able to look at individual situations and come to the right conclusion.

 

That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there.

 

As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all.

Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system.

Link to comment
I'm just perplexed by the whole exercise of trying to govern the maintenance of caches, with or without computer guided missives and regulation, through the forum.
It isn't perplexing at all. Caches are not being maintained the way we think they should be maintained. Something Must Be Done™!

 

We must do something.

This is something.

Therefore, we must do this.

 

No, I don't think this is a knee jerk reaction. This "something" has merit and should be looked at with an open mind.

 

You have this notion that everyone thinks that their way of doing something is the best and everyone should do it that way. Not true. What matters is that it gets done. The process in which that happens really doesn't matter.

Link to comment

 

Look, we all agree that the algorithm should and probably has been tweaked and like I said in my last post, Reviewers should be able to look at individual situations and come to the right conclusion.

 

That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there.

 

As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all.

Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system.

 

Yes it probably dose but since it was in response to something bearfootjeff said we'll address it here and I'll wait to hear what he has to say.

Link to comment

 

Look, we all agree that the algorithm should and probably has been tweaked and like I said in my last post, Reviewers should be able to look at individual situations and come to the right conclusion.

 

That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there.

 

As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all.

Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system.

 

Yes it probably dose but since it was in response to something bearfootjeff said we'll address it here and I'll wait to hear what he has to say.

 

When it comes to me, you can write here whatever you wish to write. My comment was just to point out that it is a different thing to appreciate the positive sides of the health score system and to welcome

the adoption ban idea which somehow would need to be based on automatic decisions without human involvement or would require a complete restructuring of the adoption process with all its consequences.

Link to comment

 

Look, we all agree that the algorithm should and probably has been tweaked and like I said in my last post, Reviewers should be able to look at individual situations and come to the right conclusion.

 

That sort of thing fits into the other thread and has been discussed there.

 

As soon as one tries to use the health score to ban someone from adoption or to even change the adoption system at all, we are at a completely different issue as currently reviewers are not involved in adoptions at all.

Implementing adoption bans would require quite a substantial change from the currently used system.

 

Yes it probably dose but since it was in response to something bearfootjeff said we'll address it here and I'll wait to hear what he has to say.

 

When it comes to me, you can write here whatever you wish to write. My comment was just to point out that it is a different thing to appreciate the positive sides of the health score system and to welcome

the adoption ban idea which somehow would need to be based on automatic decisions without human involvement or would require a complete restructuring of the adoption process with all its consequences.

 

Is that what this dose? All this time I thought it was a tool for reviewers to use to determine what actions they needed to take. I didn't realize that it would independently take over and start making critical decisions by itself.

 

Please notice the word critical. I don't consider issuing an innocuous e-mail as critical.

Link to comment

Is that what this dose? All this time I thought it was a tool for reviewers to use to determine what actions they needed to take.

 

Yes, until now it is used in this manner, at least according to some reviewers and lackeys.

 

However the OP in this thread suggests a different usage that would go beyond. That's why I'm saying that the adoption ban issue is a whole different one.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Is that what this dose? All this time I thought it was a tool for reviewers to use to determine what actions they needed to take.

 

Yes, until now it is used in this manner, at least according to some reviewers and lackeys.

 

However the OP in this thread suggests a different usage that would go beyond. That's why I'm saying that the adoption ban issue is a whole different one.

 

First, I happen to think the suggestion has merit. Second, who said it was a ban? I would think that if you had a good cache score You'd be able to adopt as many caches as you want without any involvement from GS at all.

 

Sorry but I have to go back to trying to find a way to bug fruit loops.

 

I'm trying to put a tracking device into breakfast cereal in an attempt to monitor cacher activity without them knowing about it. Problem is the devices may not last very long depending on how much fiber a cacher consumes each day.

 

I've heard that Griswold's been working on a non-nutritive cereal varnish. May be worth a try.

Link to comment
How would this tool cause a cache owner to archive a healthy cache???
This is hardly a new idea in these forums, but perhaps false positives are not handled appropriately. Perhaps the owner tried to adopt the listing to someone, but the system has incorrectly identified that account as a "maintenance shirker". And perhaps the owner is then sent a message encouraging them to archive the cache rather than adopt it to a "maintenance shirker".

Where pray tell has it been revealed that the system automatically "identifies" "maintenance shirkers"?

The system identifies potentially problematic caches, not problematic cache owners. Reviewers may infer problematic owners from potentially available statistics. Reviewer already currently keep at least some level of mental record of local cachers who can be problematic. The system, I'm confident, does not.

 

It's also a tool that sends emails to COs telling them they need to perform immediate maintenance, disable the cache until they can, or archive it, with no way to say "hey you got it wrong" other than to ignore it and hope it goes away. And presumably, although this is pure speculation, if the CO does ignore it, somewhere in the system that CO is flagged as a maintenance shirker.

Yep, pure speculation.

 

Is this still a problem?

 

Do we have any statistics to back this up?

It would be great to have for discussion, but I have a strange sense that it's beyond our pay grade. ($0)

 

ETA: As much as I'm sure *I* would actually not be seen by a few as great for discussion, I did indeed mean to refer to "it".

 

Hm. "statistics", as a singular whole "it"? Or plural "they"? :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Is this still a problem?

 

Do we have any statistics to back this up?

I would be great to have for discussion, but I have a strange sense that it's beyond our pay grade. ($0)

 

 

I know :)

 

It was more of a rhetorical question really in relation to this claim from barefootjeff:

 

If your a good cache owner the health score shouldn't effect you in any way. No reminder e-mails, No adoption restrictions, nothing.

You keep saying this but it simply isn't true. The cache health score is catching caches that are fine and sending emails to good COs, because it considers just DNF logs or even a cache that simply hasn't been found for a while to be an indicator of poor health.

 

I never expected to get an affirmative :anibad:

 

ETA - noticed you wrote I would be great to have for discussion, chuckled and wondered why I hadn't noticed it before but had simply read I as it, which was obviously what you meant and then wondered.... did he really mean I after all? :laughing:

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment

 

First, I happen to think the suggestion has merit. Second, who said it was a ban?

 

The title of the thread and the terminology used by the OP.

 

I would think that if you had a good cache score You'd be able to adopt as many caches as you want without any involvement from GS at all.

 

If it would allow new accounts and accounts with no cache score to adopt caches too, then yes. Otherwise this would be the issue I have as explained before.

Link to comment

Is this still a problem?

 

Do we have any statistics to back this up?

I would be great to have for discussion, but I have a strange sense that it's beyond our pay grade. ($0)

I know :)

 

It was more of a rhetorical question really

I know :)

 

It was just a light-hearted reply to a rhetorical question really

;)

 

ETA - noticed you wrote I would be great to have for discussion, chuckled and wondered why I hadn't noticed it before but had simply read I as it, which was obviously what you meant and then wondered.... did he really mean I after all? :laughing:

Umm. Oops. omnomnom.giflaughing.gif

Link to comment

 

First, I happen to think the suggestion has merit. Second, who said it was a ban?

 

The title of the thread and the terminology used by the OP.

 

I would think that if you had a good cache score You'd be able to adopt as many caches as you want without any involvement from GS at all.

 

If it would allow new accounts and accounts with no cache score to adopt caches too, then yes. Otherwise this would be the issue I have as explained before.

 

The thread title dose make it sound like all or nothing. I must admit it was a good tag line (117 posts and counting)

 

Lets judge the merits of the post based on the content of the question.

 

Most new accounts aren't adopting caches unless they are new accounts opened up by existing cachers. To be honest I wouldn't allow an existing cacher who has a bad track record of cache maintenance open up a new account although I don't know if that's something GS can realistically do.

Link to comment

I would think that if you had a good cache score You'd be able to adopt as many caches as you want without any involvement from GS at all.

 

If it would allow new accounts and accounts with no cache score to adopt caches too, then yes. Otherwise this would be the issue I have as explained before.

 

!!WARNING!!

 

I'm about to 'coin' a phrase of my own making. In doing so I do not wish to infer that it refers to any thing, real or even imagined, except by me.

 

Feel free to use my imaginary phrase for the purposes of continuing the discussion.

 

The phrase is Cacher Health Score or CHS for short.

 

A CHS could be based on the GHS (Geocache Health Score) of all geocaches owned by a particular geocacher account.

 

Assuming the GHS for a particular geocache remains bound to it through the adoption process, the CHS of the adopting account would also reflect the state of the adopted caches and thus still be visible as a geocache that may have a problem.

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

Link to comment

Lets judge the merits of the post based on the content of the question.

 

I does not change my strict opposition to the idea.

 

Most new accounts aren't adopting caches unless they are new accounts opened up by existing cachers. To be honest I wouldn't allow an existing cacher who has a bad track record of cache maintenance open up a new account although I don't know if that's something GS can realistically do.

 

Many cachers are not new but have no hides - it's perfectly ok if they decide to take over a cache, in particular in a cache dense area.

In my area there are many cachers with hundreds of finds and a lot of experience but no hides.

 

As your suggestion is regarded - the system does not know who is behind an account and that's good. Otherwise we would need to provide personal credentials for creating an account which I object to.

Link to comment

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.

Link to comment

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.

 

I might have suggested that - I don't remember.

 

Either way - in the spirit of exploration and sharing of ideas I came up with this imaginary mechanism that would facilitate the adoption of caches - good ones and bad ones - between accounts in a way that would still hold the account holder fully accountable for the health of the caches in a single, simple, easily visible metric.

 

I still think the number of accounts you've alluded to having / needing is ridiculous.

Link to comment

I would think that if you had a good cache score You'd be able to adopt as many caches as you want without any involvement from GS at all.

 

If it would allow new accounts and accounts with no cache score to adopt caches too, then yes. Otherwise this would be the issue I have as explained before.

 

!!WARNING!!

 

I'm about to 'coin' a phrase of my own making. In doing so I do not wish to infer that it refers to any thing, real or even imagined, except by me.

 

Feel free to use my imaginary phrase for the purposes of continuing the discussion.

 

The phrase is Cacher Health Score or CHS for short.

 

A CHS could be based on the GHS (Geocache Health Score) of all geocaches owned by a particular geocacher account.

 

Assuming the GHS for a particular geocache remains bound to it through the adoption process, the CHS of the adopting account would also reflect the state of the adopted caches and thus still be visible as a geocache that may have a problem.

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Please please please adopt a CHS score Groundspeak. And allow us to filter for cache owners with good CHS scores.

Link to comment

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.

 

No I think I suggested that and I wasn't saying it shouldn't be allowed I was asking why would you need too.

 

This idea would help put the kibosh on bad cachers opening up new accounts so they can continue to place caches they have no intention of properly maintaining.

 

Up to this point we've been focusing on the caches themselves. Maybe the answer lies in focusing on the people hiding these caches. I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

That seems a little unfair. If a cacher adopts a cache that has a bad GHS why should that effect their CHS? That may cause good cachers to avoid adoption.

 

Maybe the new cache owner could be required to preform maintenance on the adopted cache (which is what should be done anyway) to verify that it is indeed in good shape before being transferred ownership. Then the cache could be re-assigned a cache score based on the new owners CHS or simply start at 100%.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

That seems a little unfair. If a cacher adopts a cache that has a bad GHS why should that effect their CHS? That may cause good cachers to avoid adoption.

 

Maybe the new cache owner could be required to preform maintenance on the adopted cache (which is what should be done anyway) to verify that it is indeed in good shape before being transferred ownership. Then the cache could be re-assigned a cache score based on the new owners CHS or simply start at 100%.

 

It's not unfair at all.

 

The adopting CO still gets exactly the same grace period to bring the cache up to health that any other cacher would.

Link to comment

Please please please adopt a CHS score Groundspeak. And allow us to filter for cache owners with good CHS scores.

Can, open... worms, everywhere..........

 

What am I not seeing? What can of worms would it open?

Could a CHS system be abused?

I would think that it would encourage proper maintenance and decrease cache hiding addiction.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

That seems a little unfair. If a cacher adopts a cache that has a bad GHS why should that effect their CHS? That may cause good cachers to avoid adoption.

 

Maybe the new cache owner could be required to preform maintenance on the adopted cache (which is what should be done anyway) to verify that it is indeed in good shape before being transferred ownership. Then the cache could be re-assigned a cache score based on the new owners CHS or simply start at 100%.

 

It's not unfair at all.

 

The adopting CO still gets exactly the same grace period to bring the cache up to health that any other cacher would.

 

But still some cachers never ever would want to decrease their score which they would see as a rating or sort of grade. It would keep many cachers from adopting caches and bringing them into good shape.

It's something different and much less problematic to assign a score to an item like a cache than to a human being (if multiple accounts are not allowed, then it would not be about accounts but really about human beings).

Link to comment

Please please please adopt a CHS score Groundspeak. And allow us to filter for cache owners with good CHS scores.

Can, open... worms, everywhere..........

 

What am I not seeing? What can of worms would it open?

Could a CHS system be abused?

I would think that it would encourage proper maintenance and decrease cache hiding addiction.

 

I do not think so. It would encourage me and many others to take away all caches from gc.com and not hiding further ones. I guess one can blame me for many things, but certainly not for being addicted to hiding caches and not taking care of my caches properly.

 

You do not like the effects of numbers on geocaching and yet you suggest another number playing a role. I never ever think that it is a good thing when it comes to geocaching to evaluate people and end up with scores.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Most of the opposition I've read is more about having to deal with the reminder e-mail and not merits of the actual system or a fear of "big brother" somehow is trying to take over.

I could care less about the e-mail, and I'm not worried about big brother. I just don't wan the decision process to become centralized and rigid. A rigid, centralized decision process can be useful to solve hard problems, but the more we talk about this, the less convinced I am that there's any problem here at all.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

That seems a little unfair. If a cacher adopts a cache that has a bad GHS why should that effect their CHS? That may cause good cachers to avoid adoption.

 

Maybe the new cache owner could be required to preform maintenance on the adopted cache (which is what should be done anyway) to verify that it is indeed in good shape before being transferred ownership. Then the cache could be re-assigned a cache score based on the new owners CHS or simply start at 100%.

 

It's not unfair at all.

 

The adopting CO still gets exactly the same grace period to bring the cache up to health that any other cacher would.

 

But the temporary hit to their CHS would not be justified. They've done nothing wrong and are actually trying to something good. I'd want to do everything I could to encourage good cachers to adopt. Even a temporary hit to their CHS would seem unfair. I'd rather give the adopted cache a new HS and let the deeds of the new owner determine where that score goes.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

It would also beat down every sort of group account which is created by a group of very experienced and very considerate cachers to rescue a wonderful cache that happened to end up with a problem and where the responsible owner searched for cachers who could take the cache over and are able and willing to extend the life cycle of the cache and do the local community a big favour. It seems crazy to me to discourage this sort of behaviour.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

It would also beat down every sort of group account which is created by a group of very experienced and very considerate cachers to rescue a wonderful cache that happened to end up with a problem and where the responsible owner searched for cachers who could take the cache over and are able and willing to extend the life cycle of the cache and do the local community a big favour. It seems crazy to me to discourage this sort of behaviour.

 

Maybe group accounts shouldn't be able to adopt caches. Maybe only individual personal account should be allowed to. That doesn't mean the cache can't be maintained by a group. Just means that one individual is responsible in making sure it is.

Link to comment

Maybe group accounts shouldn't be able to adopt caches. Maybe only individual personal account should be allowed to. That doesn't mean the cache can't be maintained by a group. Just means that one individual is responsible in making sure it is.

 

If the group works together on different parts of the cache, they all need access to the cache description and the mails sent to the account.

Moreover the group account was just one example. I have provided others before.

 

All sorts of rigid approaches would decrease the number of cachers willing to adopt caches and to take care of them in the long run.

Link to comment

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.

 

No I think I suggested that and I wasn't saying it shouldn't be allowed I was asking why would you need too.

 

No, see post 7.

Link to comment

I'd hate to see inexperienced cachers beat down with a bad score but maybe it would add some extra incentive to actually read the maintenance guidelines and take them seriously.

 

My imaginary CHS would only beat down an inexperienced cacher who adopted caches with bad GHS.

 

It would also beat down every sort of group account which is created by a group of very experienced and very considerate cachers to rescue a wonderful cache that happened to end up with a problem and where the responsible owner searched for cachers who could take the cache over and are able and willing to extend the life cycle of the cache and do the local community a big favour. It seems crazy to me to discourage this sort of behaviour.

 

It wouldn't beat them down at all - you're exaggerating.

 

At worst it should be a temporary blip on their CHS.

 

Nobody here is discouraging the sort of behaviour you describe above.

Link to comment

Maybe group accounts shouldn't be able to adopt caches. Maybe only individual personal account should be allowed to. That doesn't mean the cache can't be maintained by a group. Just means that one individual is responsible in making sure it is.

 

If the group works together on different parts of the cache, they all need access to the cache description and the mails sent to the account.

Moreover the group account was just one example. I have provided others before.

 

All sorts of rigid approaches would decrease the number of cachers willing to adopt caches and to take care of them in the long run.

 

Why would a group of people need to have access to the cache description? Please give me an example of any type of cache where this type of access is absolutely necessary? By absolutely I mean something that one single person couldn't coordinate.

Link to comment

 

In this way, new accounts and accounts with no health score would automatically gain a health score based on the caches held by the account.

 

Right, but at the same time you suggested not to allow a cacher to create new accounts or use existing alternative accounts for adopting caches which led me explain why I dislike this idea strongly.

 

No I think I suggested that and I wasn't saying it shouldn't be allowed I was asking why would you need too.

 

No, see post 7.

 

I know I did too......Somewhere in here.

Link to comment

I'd rather give the adopted cache a new HS and let the deeds of the new owner determine where that score goes.

 

For a moment I thought yeah - fair enough - not a bad idea.

 

But then I thought again...

 

So I adopt a box of junk.

 

It gets a new GHS.

 

It's still a box of junk.

 

I do nothing about it.

 

Months pass, under the current system, until the GHS falls low enough that something gets done about it.

 

What have we gained?

Link to comment

Please please please adopt a CHS score Groundspeak. And allow us to filter for cache owners with good CHS scores.

Can, open... worms, everywhere..........

 

What am I not seeing? What can of worms would it open?

Could a CHS system be abused?

I would think that it would encourage proper maintenance and decrease cache hiding addiction.

 

I do not think so. It would encourage me and many others to take away all caches from gc.com and not hiding further ones. I guess one can blame me for many things, but certainly not for being addicted to hiding caches and not taking care of my caches properly.

 

You do not like the effects of numbers on geocaching and yet you suggest another number playing a role. I never ever think that it is a good thing when it comes to geocaching to evaluate people and end up with scores.

 

Personally the current state of the game is encouraging me to take away all our caches. I don't like being a part of what it's become. I removed 3 this winter and have plans to remove 5 more by the end of April.

Link to comment

I'd rather give the adopted cache a new HS and let the deeds of the new owner determine where that score goes.

 

For a moment I thought yeah - fair enough - not a bad idea.

 

But then I thought again...

 

So I adopt a box of junk.

 

It gets a new GHS.

 

It's still a box of junk.

 

I do nothing about it.

 

Months pass, under the current system, until the GHS falls low enough that something gets done about it.

 

What have we gained?

 

I guess I'd have to ask why someone would go through the process of adopting a cache just to leave it a pile of junk? Back a few posts I suggested the new owner be required to confirm the caches condition before being allowed to adopt.

 

Either way what have you lost? You had a pile of junk. You still have a pile of junk but now you've identified another potential maintenance shirker.

Link to comment

Assuming we go with the CHS, then it depends on whether the CHS is determined by current and active GHS or whether there's a tallied CHS kept separately. And whether a GHS is really a "score" or a current rating as to its health. If it's a lifetime score, then it reflects the habits of the owner during that time. If it's a current health state, then it's only reflective of the current owner maintenance. (based on ignoring the chance of false positives)

 

But, since we don't have a CHS, only a GHS that's intended to identify potential current problematic caches' health, I think there are a few steps before being able to use that score to determine viability of adoption based on owner habits.

 

If we assume we can generated a CHS from their owned caches' GHS's, then if there's an adoption it means necessarily that the adoptee's CHS should not be affected by the GHS of the adopted cache. Or, a grace period allows the adoptee to verify the adopted cache before the GHS affects their CHS.

 

But really, the CHS should not be changed given the current use of the algorithm to identify potentially problematic caches: this should not change just because the owner changes.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Personally the current state of the game is encouraging me to take away all our caches. I don't like being a part of what it's become. I removed 3 this winter and have plans to remove 5 more by the end of April.
Yeah, there's a local cache owner who is removing all his high-terrain caches and archiving the listings. He plans to be done by the end of the year. It's a shame really, but I understand the frustrations that are motivating his actions.
Link to comment
Maybe group accounts shouldn't be able to adopt caches.
As a practical matter, how would Groundspeak know the difference between a group account and an individual account?

 

The email address that the account uses? The name of the account? The psychic hamsters running the servers?

Link to comment
Maybe group accounts shouldn't be able to adopt caches. Maybe only individual personal account should be allowed to.

I don't think there's any distinction in how an account is set up to distinguish between a group and an individual. All you need is a unique email address and a point of contact, right? Unless it changed from the last time I set up a sock puppet test account, I think that's how it still works.

 

edit: ah, I see nariD is on the same track. Smart man, that nariD, I've always said.

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

I'd rather give the adopted cache a new HS and let the deeds of the new owner determine where that score goes.

 

For a moment I thought yeah - fair enough - not a bad idea.

 

But then I thought again...

 

So I adopt a box of junk.

 

It gets a new GHS.

 

It's still a box of junk.

 

I do nothing about it.

 

Months pass, under the current system, until the GHS falls low enough that something gets done about it.

 

What have we gained?

 

I guess I'd have to ask why someone would go through the process of adopting a cache just to leave it a pile of junk? Back a few posts I suggested the new owner be required to confirm the caches condition before being allowed to adopt.

 

Either way what have you lost? You had a pile of junk. You still have a pile of junk but now you've identified another potential maintenance shirker.

 

Saw an example recently. The cache--a gladware container placed on a mountain top that required 2 hours of hiking and at one point climbing a scree slope--was never actually visited by the original owner, friends placed the cache for the owner. Problems arose, then DNFs. The wanna-be adopter (who had never found any of the original owner's mountain caches) contacted the owner and asked to adopt all of their old high terrain caches. The exchange occurred. The adopter proudly announced how he had acquired and saved these remote caches for the community but then never went out to check them. The caches remained missing or in bad condition. He got quite angry when one of those caches got caught by the reviewer, but he did eventually go check one the cache because I expect he knew if he didn't that old mountaintop cache would be archived. And I expect he would never place his own there, because it was too far away (a 2 hour drive). The point of ownership was to save the listing, the GC code and high terrain listing.

 

I also suspect that he and many others would prefer Waymarking (no cache to maintain) but it doesn't draw the crowds or the logs that the geocaching site manages to do.

Edited by L0ne.R
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...