Jump to content

Ban adoptions by maintanance shirkers


Followers 4

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

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?

 

I don't know. Anyone have an answer to this?

 

I guess as long as there's a loophole lets forget about the whole thing.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

 

That's why I believe the Geocache Health Score must travel with the cache AND if there were such a thing as a Cacher Health Score which reflected the health score of the geocaches held by the account, the receiving account would have to take the health hit from those caches.

 

In effect I imagine that already happens anyway - the caches are adopted by an account and those caches and their existing health scores, good or bad, are associated with that account.

 

Automatically classing a geocache as healthy just on the basis it has been adopted doesn't make sense - to me at least.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

 

That's why I believe the Geocache Health Score must travel with the cache AND if there were such a thing as a Cacher Health Score which reflected the health score of the geocaches held by the account, the receiving account would have to take the health hit from those caches.

 

In effect I imagine that already happens anyway - the caches are adopted by an account and those caches and their existing health scores, good or bad, are associated with that account.

 

Automatically classing a geocache as healthy just on the basis it has been adopted doesn't make sense - to me at least.

 

No, your right. Scoring the cache itself dose make more sense.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

 

That's why I believe the Geocache Health Score must travel with the cache AND if there were such a thing as a Cacher Health Score which reflected the health score of the geocaches held by the account, the receiving account would have to take the health hit from those caches.

 

In effect I imagine that already happens anyway - the caches are adopted by an account and those caches and their existing health scores, good or bad, are associated with that account.

 

Automatically classing a geocache as healthy just on the basis it has been adopted doesn't make sense - to me at least.

 

No, your right. Scoring the cache itself dose make more sense.

 

I'm not saying that the cacher can't also be scored.

 

The health of the caches on the account (GHS) could be factored into the cacher health score (CHS) - but the CHS could also factor in other metrics - Has previously had geoaches archived by reviewer through lack of response for example.

Link to comment

That's why I believe the Geocache Health Score must travel with the cache AND if there were such a thing as a Cacher Health Score which reflected the health score of the geocaches held by the account, the receiving account would have to take the health hit from those caches.

As I mentioned in my previous comment, I don't think a GHS should affect a CHS. Plus I think the two scores would be based on different factors. The GHS is a health status; current, active, now. The CHS is a rating of action, how the user handles or has handled maintenance of their owned caches.

 

Adopting a cache should ever have the new GHS affect the user's current CHS. But how the new owner handles that cache from that point on would affect their CHS. That may mean some properties would affect both scores equally, and it may mean some properties would affect one and not the other.

 

But I would say the CHS and GHS should not be connected to each other. They measure different things. One of the factors of the CHS could be affected by the current average GHS of all currently owned caches. Even perhaps weighted factor in of old/archived/previously owned cache CHS, up to an extent. But as before, how long should an owner be penalized for a bad cache? When may they have learned and changed their ways? The CHS is a temporal score, where recent factors have to be weighted more greatly. But GHS ratings should not have a direct and immediate impact on the CHS.

 

In effect I imagine that already happens anyway - the caches are adopted by an account and those caches and their existing health scores, good or bad, are associated with that account.

 

Automatically classing a geocache as healthy just on the basis it has been adopted doesn't make sense - to me at least.

Exactly.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

The point of ownership was to save the listing, the GC code and high terrain listing.

I see nothing wrong with the point of an adoption being to save the listing, GC code, or high terrain listing. Yes, let's complain about not maintaining the cache, since a lost or trashed container doesn't save anything, but I see no reason to complain because someone wants to save an old or unusual listing as long as the cache is maintained.

 

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.

I don't think a cache on a mountain top gets crowds, either.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

 

Creating multiple accounts is a lot of bother just so they don't have to do any maintenance work. And I think it will become quite evident about what's going on.

 

Once the puppet account gets a bad score, then another puppet account has to be created. Seems easier to let the cache get archived--many shirkers don't archive the cache themselves, too much bother, let the reviewer do it.

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.

 

Because as a maintenance shirker I wanted to get myself another 6 to 12 month breather where I didn't need to do anything - so I set up a Non-Premium account and adopted all my junk caches over to it, knowing that they'd get a shiny, new health score which would take time to erode B)

 

In fact thinking about it, I imagine this is why Groundspeak currently score the geocache rather than the owner - and the Geocache Health Score applies to the cache regardless of who owns it - even after it is adopted... clever B)

 

how would you do that if your a maintenance shirker? If that's true your CHS would probably be to low to adopt anything, no?

 

Which account?

 

My actual player account or my sock puppet account?

 

Then I guess the ability to have multiple unrelated accounts is the issue which I guess can't be fixed.

 

That's why I believe the Geocache Health Score must travel with the cache AND if there were such a thing as a Cacher Health Score which reflected the health score of the geocaches held by the account, the receiving account would have to take the health hit from those caches.

 

In effect I imagine that already happens anyway - the caches are adopted by an account and those caches and their existing health scores, good or bad, are associated with that account.

 

Automatically classing a geocache as healthy just on the basis it has been adopted doesn't make sense - to me at least.

 

No, your right. Scoring the cache itself dose make more sense.

 

I'm not saying that the cacher can't also be scored.

 

The health of the caches on the account (GHS) could be factored into the cacher health score (CHS) - but the CHS could also factor in other metrics - Has previously had geoaches archived by reviewer through lack of response for example.

 

Right. Both a GHS and CHS will be beneficial.

Link to comment

The point of ownership was to save the listing, the GC code and high terrain listing.

I see nothing wrong with the point of an adoption being to save the listing, GC code, or high terrain listing. Yes, let's complain about not maintaining the cache, since a lost or trashed container doesn't save anything, but I see no reason to complain because someone wants to save an old or unusual listing as long as the cache is maintained.

 

Exactly. That#s also why I do not understand why so much energy should be spent in restricting adoptions and making life hard for many who take over caches and maintain them properly.

 

Unmaintained caches are unmaintained regardless of whether they are owned by the original account or another account. There are mechanisms to deal with this issue and the health score project might be seen as a relatively new additional tool along these lines. I wonder why an adopted cache in bad condition is anything different than a cache in bad condition.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The point of ownership was to save the listing, the GC code and high terrain listing.

I see nothing wrong with the point of an adoption being to save the listing, GC code, or high terrain listing. Yes, let's complain about not maintaining the cache, since a lost or trashed container doesn't save anything, but I see no reason to complain because someone wants to save an old or unusual listing as long as the cache is maintained.

 

Exactly. That#s also why I do not understand why so much energy should be spent in restricting adoptions and making life hard for many who take over caches and maintain them properly.

 

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

 

You seem keen to advise others of the purpose of the thread so I guess you read the thread title, yes?

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

 

You seem keen to advise others of the purpose of the thread so I guess you read the thread title, yes?

 

Yes, I read the thread title. However what you would like to see would imply that one would need to legitimate accounts in some way (credit card info, id card or whatever) and then also be restricted to a single one and would need to use that one for adoptions too.

In post #7 you also clearly said that adoptions should be restricted to the player accounts.

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

 

You seem keen to advise others of the purpose of the thread so I guess you read the thread title, yes?

 

Yes, I read the thread title. However what you would like to see would imply that one would need to legitimate accounts in some way (credit card info, id card or whatever) and then also be restricted to a single one and would need to use that one for adoptions too.

In post #7 you also clearly said that adoptions should be restricted to the player accounts.

 

The only person here making claims about requirements for credit card information, id card or whatever is you.

 

Let's look back at the post you keep referencing, #7 I think it was...

 

 

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.

 

Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me.

 

Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone?

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

The entire point of the proposed feature is to make it hard for anyone with a bad score to take over a cache even if they will maintain the cache properly.

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

The entire point of the proposed feature is to make it hard for anyone with a bad score to take over a cache even if they will maintain the cache properly.

 

The point is actually to weed out the CO's whose track record indicates that they've no interest in maintaining even the caches they've gone to the trouble of placing themselves - let alone any the might adopt. That's not necessarily the entire point though - there could be other benefits too.

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.

 

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

 

Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me.

 

Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone?

 

Yes, and also what would be needed to implement this (rigorous checks for personal data).

 

Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance and set-up would e.g. become unmanageable and it would also mean as I said before that someone with no caches at all cannot adopt caches.

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.

 

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

 

Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me.

 

Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone?

 

Yes, and also what would be needed to implement this (rigorous checks for personal data).

 

Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance and set-up would e.g. become unmanageable and it would also mean as I said before that someone with no caches at all cannot adopt caches.

 

No, no and no.

 

Rigorous checks for personal data doesn't even enter the equation.

 

Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance would not become unmanageable - there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

Someone with no caches at all could adopt caches - go back to post 121 where I acknowledged that as a possibility and how it might work. The thread has moved forward since post #7 - you need to move forward with it. I'm not going to keep looping back.

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.

 

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

 

Yep - I still stand by that - looks like the simplest and most sensible option to me.

 

Is this what you're trying to claim makes life hard for someone?

 

Yes, and also what would be needed to implement this (rigorous checks for personal data).

 

Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance and set-up would e.g. become unmanageable and it would also mean as I said before that someone with no caches at all cannot adopt caches.

 

No, no and no.

 

Rigorous checks for personal data doesn't even enter the equation.

 

But how will you otherwise be able to detect whether someone uses a different account?

 

Larger cache projects which require more than one person for maintenance would not become unmanageable - there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

How much experience do you with such projects?

 

Someone with no caches at all could adopt caches - go back to post 121 where I acknowledged that as a possibility and how it might work. The thread has moved forward since post #7 - you need to move forward with it. I'm not going to keep looping back.

 

It was you who just recently wrote that you still stand by #7. You are confusing me as all these statements contradict each other - at least when you do not check rigorously for personal data which implies that you cannot detect the difference between the second account of cacher A and the sole account of cacher B both with no hides.

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

The entire point of the proposed feature is to make it hard for anyone with a bad score to take over a cache even if they will maintain the cache properly.

The point is actually to weed out the CO's whose track record indicates that they've no interest in maintaining even the caches they've gone to the trouble of placing themselves - let alone any the might adopt.

The only difference between what I said and what you said is that I impartially described what the actual feature you proposed, but you're describing what you want it to do.

 

That's not necessarily the entire point though - there could be other benefits too.

I think your proposal suffers enough from the dubious value of its arbitrary goal. Do you really need to throw in completely vacuous promises of additional benefits?

Link to comment

Who is spending energy in restricting adoptions and making life hard for the many (whatever that means) who take over caches and maintain them properly? (my bold)

The entire point of the proposed feature is to make it hard for anyone with a bad score to take over a cache even if they will maintain the cache properly.

The point is actually to weed out the CO's whose track record indicates that they've no interest in maintaining even the caches they've gone to the trouble of placing themselves - let alone any the might adopt.

The only difference between what I said and what you said is that I impartially described what the actual feature you proposed, but you're describing what you want it to do.

 

The real difference is that you seem to be claiming that the shirker will suddenly turn over a new leaf and I think you're probably wrong.

 

That's not necessarily the entire point though - there could be other benefits too.

I think your proposal suffers enough from the dubious value of its arbitrary goal. Do you really need to throw in completely vacuous promises of additional benefits?

 

It shouldn't take a genius to work out that every abandoned junk cache removed from the map leaves space for a nice, shiny new one which might just facilitate fresh blood and new faces to replace those that have grown tired of cache upkeep.

 

I'd class that as an additional benefit - nothing even slightly vacuous about it. I doubt I'd be alone in seeing that as a benefit either.

Link to comment

Good grief. I'm imagining this conversation between a CO wanting to adopt a cache and TPTB...

 

TPTB: You can't adopt the cache.

CO: Why not?

TPTB: Your CHS is too low.

CO: But I'm not a maintenance shirker. How's that happened?

TPTB: Some of your existing caches have low GHSs.

CO: Huh? But I haven't received any maintenance needed emails.

TPTB: They're not quite low enough to trigger that, but taken together they still give you a low CHS.

CO: But they're good quality caches that I keep well maintained. Why do they have low GHSs?

TPTB: Four of them haven't been found in over eighteen months and this one here's had 3 DNFs in a row.

CO: But those DNFs had nothing to do with the cache! One was because of muggles, one because it started raining, and with the third one I checked with the searcher and they were looking in the wrong place. How can I fix that?

TPTB: You can't; the system doesn't allow the reporting of false positives. The only way is for more people to start finding your caches; that'll boost their GHSs.

CO: But three of them are T4 and the other's a T5. Not many people go for those these days.

TPTB: Archive them, then. That'll fix your CHS.

Link to comment

[

 

It shouldn't take a genius to work out that every abandoned junk cache removed from the map leaves space for a nice, shiny new one which might just facilitate fresh blood and new faces to replace those that have grown tired of cache upkeep.

 

I'd class that as an additional benefit - nothing even slightly vacuous about it. I doubt I'd be alone in seeing that as a benefit either.

 

However there are many caches that get adopted out when being in good condition and it is a loss when due to changes noone can be found to take them over. I'd class that as a big loss. It is already difficult enough to find adopters for caches that are not easy to maintain. Typically this are not the caches where someone will jump in and hide a new cache of the same type.

 

Junk caches will get archived after all anyway.

 

It seems to me that your ideas are based by your personal caching experiences whicch do not seem to include caches that take several hours (or even multiple days not necessarily contiguous) and are not easy to get to. Of course the majority of caches does not belong to this category, but it would be a pity if these rare caches became even rarer out of an attempt to somehow deal with mass caches that already ruined enough for those who are not after mass caches.

 

There is no doubt that geocaching means different things to different people. We need to find ways to live together in the best manner despite our very different preferences. So let's compare who is getting to lose/win what if your suggestions are implemented. Cachers like you end up with some junk caches being archived a bit earlier and potentially replaced by something you like more a bit earlier. Cachers like me will end up with more nice caches getting archived (and not rescued by someone) while nothing gets hidden as replacement. I wonder if it would not be worth to wait a little bit longer in some cases if it would help others who happen to suffer from a lack of appropriate caches anyhow.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The real difference is that you seem to be claiming that the shirker will suddenly turn over a new leaf and I think you're probably wrong.

I'm pointing out that it's possible, and if it ever happens -- or if your shirker identification metric ever generates a false positive -- your plan will, in fact, make it harder for someone that's going to maintain the adopted cache, exactly what you denied when cezanne accused you of it.

Link to comment

The real difference is that you seem to be claiming that the shirker will suddenly turn over a new leaf and I think you're probably wrong.

I'm pointing out that it's possible, and if it ever happens -- or if your shirker identification metric ever generates a false positive -- your plan will, in fact, make it harder for someone that's going to maintain the adopted cache, exactly what you denied when cezanne accused you of it.

 

It's hard to discuss adoption as it pertains to the health score when we don't even agree on the health score.

 

I wish someone would post just one example of a bad cache this tool helped identify, then we could spend 100 posts praising the virtues of the system.

Link to comment

But as before, how long should an owner be penalized for a bad cache?

 

Only up to the point where they turn it into a good cache :)

 

So then the CHS has to be only a current summation of owned cache stats, not a track record of their maintenance abilities.

In that case what happens with an adoption of a low GHS cache?

 

Running with the idea that there is a distinct CHS, then why would someone want to "hurt" their owner score by taking on a bad cache?

The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing.

 

The only bad thing would be for people who adopt a bad cache and don't fix it up. And that would be a bad thing. But the system will utlimately recognize that.

 

But really this means that there isn't a separate CHS, since it really is just a summation of owned caches.

 

So a system that determines if a person can adopt a cache would be basing it merely on the current state of their owned caches, their GHS's, not a track record of their ownership habits.

 

Thus we wouldn't need a distinct CHS in that case. All the info needed is in the collective GHS's.

Link to comment

But as before, how long should an owner be penalized for a bad cache?

 

Only up to the point where they turn it into a good cache :)

 

So then the CHS has to be only a current summation of owned cache stats, not a track record of their maintenance abilities.

 

In all fairness it doesn't have to be anything in particular - it's an amorphous concept, a loosly defined model for the purposes of discussion. Sometimes I get bored of couching everything I say in air quotes just in case the nit-pickers initiate bickering phase and instead I just think out loud and allow my creative self to emerge :laughing:

 

In that case what happens with an adoption of a low GHS cache?

 

Running with the idea that there is a distinct CHS, then why would someone want to "hurt" their owner score by taking on a bad cache?

The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing.

 

That's the ideal. Those already committed to bringing the adopted cache up to standard wouldn't worry themselves about a small, temporary reduction in CHS. Par for the course.

 

The only bad thing would be for people who adopt a bad cache and don't fix it up. And that would be a bad thing. But the system will utlimately recognize that.

 

But really this means that there isn't a separate CHS, since it really is just a summation of owned caches.

 

I came to a similar realisation. We know about the existence of GHS and I've imagined something called CHS but really I'm seeing a little dashboard that can aggregate together all sorts of metrics that can assist the reviewer in making choices at a glance, without having to drill down into more detailed areas.

 

So a system that determines if a person can adopt a cache would be basing it merely on the current state of their owned caches, their GHS's, not a track record of their ownership habits.

 

Thus we wouldn't need a distinct CHS in that case. All the info needed is in the collective GHS's.

 

True.

 

But other metrics could be calculated and be useful.

Link to comment

So then it's not an automated system to determine if adoption can move forward.

 

But as before, how long should an owner be penalized for a bad cache?

Only up to the point where they turn it into a good cache :)

 

But then this can't work:

But other metrics could be calculated and be useful.

.. if it's automated. (otherwise it's not just current cache stats but a track record stat of other non-current factors)

 

If it's not automated, then adoption requests will have to go through the reviewer queue.

 

So what are you looking for?

- Automated? Reviewed?

- Distinct rating of maintenance habits per cacher (to identify maintenance shirkers for use automatically or by review)? Or current summary statistic of the state of owned caches?

 

It can't be all of the above, and if that what you're proposing then where's the discussion? :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Good grief. I'm imagining this conversation between a CO wanting to adopt a cache and TPTB...

 

TPTB: You can't adopt the cache.

CO: Why not?

TPTB: Your CHS is too low.

CO: But I'm not a maintenance shirker. How's that happened?

TPTB: Some of your existing caches have low GHSs.

CO: Huh? But I haven't received any maintenance needed emails.

TPTB: They're not quite low enough to trigger that, but taken together they still give you a low CHS.

CO: But they're good quality caches that I keep well maintained. Why do they have low GHSs?

TPTB: Four of them haven't been found in over eighteen months and this one here's had 3 DNFs in a row.

CO: But those DNFs had nothing to do with the cache! One was because of muggles, one because it started raining, and with the third one I checked with the searcher and they were looking in the wrong place. How can I fix that?

TPTB: You can't; the system doesn't allow the reporting of false positives. The only way is for more people to start finding your caches; that'll boost their GHSs.

CO: But three of them are T4 and the other's a T5. Not many people go for those these days.

TPTB: Archive them, then. That'll fix your CHS.

 

Not to mention the fact that we would need an appeals committee to look into CHS scores, and suggest ways to improve one's score just to adopt/place a cache.

 

Not a fan. The system works just fine. If there are bad caches near you, ask for them to be archived. If a cache is up for adoption and you want it, then adopt it. If no one adopts it, then it will get archived. If you adopt one, it becomes yours [you are now the responsible owner] and you should treat it that way. It probably needs a maintenance check to get things started.

 

The only parts of this thread that I can be in agreement with are that we might have a reviewer action on an adoption, and encourage a maintenance check on an adoption.

I don't like any of this automated scoring and actions.

Link to comment

 

So then the CHS has to be only a current summation of owned cache stats, not a track record of their maintenance abilities.

In that case what happens with an adoption of a low GHS cache?

 

Running with the idea that there is a distinct CHS, then why would someone want to "hurt" their owner score by taking on a bad cache?

The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing.

 

Not necessarily a good thing. Suppose a cache in the mountains which is not reachable in winter has a problem and the original owner cannot or does not want to take care. A responsible cacher adopts the

cache to rescue it and writes a note immediately that the cache will get fixed and reenabled in a few months when the snow has melted. The score will stay bad and the motivation to engage for a cache that cannot be fixed immediately will decrease even further. In such a case it might even block cache projects of the adopter in an unfair manner.

 

Note the difference to the cache health score system used to support reviewers. They only get a list of caches that might need attention and look at the caches on the list. They would become aware of a note of the type mentioned above and act accordingly. An automatic system which blocks cache placements/adoptions cannot read and understand notes.

Link to comment

So then the CHS has to be only a current summation of owned cache stats, not a track record of their maintenance abilities.

In that case what happens with an adoption of a low GHS cache?

 

Running with the idea that there is a distinct CHS, then why would someone want to "hurt" their owner score by taking on a bad cache?

The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing.

 

Not necessarily a good thing. Suppose a cache in the mountains which is not reachable in winter has a problem and the original owner cannot or does not want to take care. A responsible cacher adopts the

cache to rescue it and writes a note immediately that the cache will get fixed and reenabled in a few months when the snow has melted. The score will stay bad and the motivation to engage for a cache that cannot be fixed immediately will decrease even further. In such a case it might even block cache projects of the adopter in an unfair manner.

How does:

"The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing."

Prompt:

"Not necessarily a good thing."

 

What you describe is not the same. It is a good thing that people who would adopt a bad cache (and take the immediate CHS hit) would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache to restore its GHS (and their own CHS).

 

What isn't a good thing (which you describe) is if a bad cache that you feel should remain doesn't get adopted by even good owners because they feel it would hurt their CHS in the short term. --> But look, it's a bad cache. If it gets archived because it's a bad cache and for whatever reason no one wants to adopt it, how is that a bad thing? That's the system doing its job, really.

Link to comment

How does:

"The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing."

Prompt:

"Not necessarily a good thing."

 

What you describe is not the same. It is a good thing that people who would adopt a bad cache (and take the immediate CHS hit) would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache to restore its GHS (and their own CHS).

 

What I meant is this: It's not a good thing to require from an adopter to fix a problem immediately regardless of whether the circumstances allow it or to let this person end up with a bad score for the time when no maintenance can be done.

 

What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache. It's not a good thing to value "immediacy" more than other aspects that are at least as important.

Link to comment

It's hard to discuss adoption as it pertains to the health score when we don't even agree on the health score.

 

I wish someone would post just one example of a bad cache this tool helped identify, then we could spend 100 posts praising the virtues of the system.

In just the past week, I've disabled more than twenty caches with legit maintenance issues that first came to my attention because of the tools made available to Community Volunteer Reviewers as a result of the Cache Health Score. Yay! And, I was also able to skip over a small handful of listings that were "false positives" in the Cache Health Score. Whew!

 

None of that is relevant to the subject of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers, but since you asked, I thought I'd share. :anicute:

Link to comment

It's hard to discuss adoption as it pertains to the health score when we don't even agree on the health score.

 

I wish someone would post just one example of a bad cache this tool helped identify, then we could spend 100 posts praising the virtues of the system.

In just the past week, I've disabled more than twenty caches with legit maintenance issues that first came to my attention because of the tools made available to Community Volunteer Reviewers as a result of the Cache Health Score. Yay! And, I was also able to skip over a small handful of listings that were "false positives" in the Cache Health Score. Whew!

 

None of that is relevant to the subject of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers, but since you asked, I thought I'd share. :anicute:

 

Thanks for Sharing that Keystone.

 

Could you possible share one more thing?

 

Have you seen progress in limiting the number of false positives? In other words is the system getting better at identifying caches that are truly in need of help?

Link to comment

So then the CHS has to be only a current summation of owned cache stats, not a track record of their maintenance abilities.

In all fairness it doesn't have to be anything in particular - it's an amorphous concept, a loosly defined model for the purposes of discussion.

I thought the proposal was dumb enough when the problem was poorly defined and not shown to exist. Now you're telling me your proposed solution isn't defined, either? No wonder this discussion isn't being very productive.

Link to comment

How does:

"The people who would do it would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache and restore its GHS. That would be a good thing."

Prompt:

"Not necessarily a good thing."

 

What you describe is not the same. It is a good thing that people who would adopt a bad cache (and take the immediate CHS hit) would be those who actively and immediately get out to fix up the adopted cache to restore its GHS (and their own CHS).

 

What I meant is this: It's not a good thing to require from an adopter to fix a problem immediately regardless of whether the circumstances allow it or to let this person end up with a bad score for the time when no maintenance can be done.

 

What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache. It's not a good thing to value "immediacy" more than other aspects that are at least as important.

 

"It's not a good thing to require from an adopter to fix a problem immediately"

 

Who is requiring anything?

If an adopter feels that there's a sense of immediacy because they don't want their personal CHS to be low because of adopting a bad cache, that's their problem. There is no implied immediacy, only inferred.

 

"What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache."

 

And that's entirely subjective, because it would depend on how important the adopter's lowered CHS is to themselves. That's it. If they want to adopt a bad cache now but don't want to live with the lowered CHS because of that, that is entirely their own concern. If the cache continues to have a problem, it may/will eventually come to the attention of the reviewer and with due process potentially get archived. If that adopter while owning that bad cache wants to adopt another and is blocked by the automated system because they previously adopted and now currently own a bad cache that drops their CHS, well again, that's their problem they have to deal with; they chose to adopt a bad cache knowing they couldn't go and fix it up. A better choice (per the design of the system) would be to let the bad cache get archived, or let someone else take on the responsibility of fixing it. (and remember, if it's only rated bad due to a false positive, there is no threat of it being archived because the reviewer can make that judgement)

 

But ok, let's consider an extremely rare potential situation: Cache has a bad health score which is a false positive. Cache is adopted by a good owner, who takes on the bad GHS, affecting their own CHS. Adopter wishes to adopt another cache before fixing up "Bad" cache, but is denied because system only sees their bad CHS score. Uh oh, this could be bad...

 

Smart adopter: "Hey reviewer, can you take a look at "Bad" cache which I believe is in perfect condition and advise me on how I can fix its score so that the system will let me adopt this other cache?"

 

Problem solved.

 

Wait, you don't like the reviewer's answer? Well, that's no longer in the realm of the automated health score system to flag maintenance shirkers. Take up their decision with appeals.

 

Worst case scenario: Nothing can technically be done, by reviewers or GSHQ, to allow the adoption while the false-positive "Bad" cache is owned. I find that next to impossible to believe.And so unbelieveably rare that it's not worth weighing into the conversation, IMO.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Who is requiring anything?

If an adopter feels that there's a sense of immediacy because they don't want their personal CHS to be low because of adopting a bad cache, that's their problem. There is no implied immediacy, only inferred.

 

If even bans could happen or as suggested by someone one could filter to the CHS of cachers, then many adopters will feel forced into acting more quickly than is leading to the best results. This not only affects cases of the type I mentioned when an immediate maintenance is not possible but also cases where a quick and dirty fix is not the best in terms of the resulting quality. For example, put out a standard micro as replacement for a creatively crafted cache container for which one needs to wait for some replacement items to be delivered.

 

"What counts is that caches are taken care of within a period of time that is reasonable in the setting of the cache."

 

And that's entirely subjective, because it would depend on how important the adopter's lowered CHS is to themselves. That's it. If they want to adopt a bad cache now but don't want to live with the lowered CHS because of that, that is entirely their own concern.

 

No, that's much more a problem for the local community which loses precious caches if taking responsibility is discouraged by such a system.

 

If the cache continues to have a problem, it may/will eventually come to the attention of the reviewer and with due process potentially get archived.

 

It won't if the adopter writes the sort of note I mentioned as the reviewer will then hopefully wait until the snow melted away.

In such a case there is hardly any choice when to adopt the cache if one wants to rescue it. It's much more convincing if someone takes over a cache

and promises to maintain it as soon as possible than if the person who is not able or willing to maintain the cache further writes a note that the cache

will be adopted by someone.

 

If that adopter while owning that bad cache wants to adopt another and is blocked by the automated system because they previously adopted and now currently own a bad cache that drops their CHS, well again, that's their problem they have to deal with; they chose to adopt a bad cache knowing they couldn't go and fix it up. A better choice (per the design of the system) would be to let the bad cache get archived, or let someone else take on the responsibility of fixing it. (and remember, if it's only rated bad due to a false positive, there is no threat of it being archived because the reviewer can make that judgement)

 

I did not have false positives in mind in my post above. But again in the system you describe as best, everyone would just do what is best for themselves - hardly anything which I regard as a community I wanted to be part of.

 

BTW: I do have a problem with your term "bad cache" as not every cache that has a problem that needs to be fixed warrants to be referred to as bad cache. If for example there is a single minor problem for a very nice hiking cache which covers a distance of 300km, I'd hardly call this a bad cache and I would be very grateful to every cacher who were willing to contribute to rescue such a cache and keep it going. These are not the sort of caches which when they get archived get replaced by something comparable. Such caches are rare jewels and I think it is worth to fight for each of those.

Link to comment

Smart adopter: "Hey reviewer, can you take a look at "Bad" cache which I believe is in perfect condition and advise me on how I can fix its score so that the system will let me adopt this other cache?"

 

As an aside, I'm just wondering with the GHS we currently have, if a reviewer can actually fix a cache's health score if it's an obvious false positive, or if all they can do is ignore it (and maybe report it to the hamster tweakers) when it's flagged to them.

Link to comment

In just the past week, I've disabled more than twenty caches with legit maintenance issues that first came to my attention because of the tools made available to Community Volunteer Reviewers as a result of the Cache Health Score. Yay! And, I was also able to skip over a small handful of listings that were "false positives" in the Cache Health Score. Whew!

 

None of that is relevant to the subject of banning adoptions by maintenance shirkers, but since you asked, I thought I'd share. :anicute:

Thanks Keystone, it's good to see the system's working well for you. And I guess that answers Team Microdot's question from a few days back - yes, the system is still generating small handfuls of false positives a week in at least one reviewer's territory.

Link to comment

 

...blah blah blah...

 

Problem solved.

 

...blah blah blah...

 

 

You know, it's incredibly annoying to have people who quite evidently know next to nothing about statistics pushing for a statistics-based system for punishing cachers.

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

I have no intention of trying to educate you on the topic; you (and Microdot) are the ones who are advocating this ridiculous and punitive policy. I know it's pointless, but it just seems to me that knowing even a tiny bit about what you are talking about would greatly diminish the extent to which your arguments make you appear to be thoughtless and ignorant.

 

I will give you a clue as to how to proceed. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your precious statistical test has a 95% accuracy. What do you think the ratio of false-positives to true positives would be? If you say 1 in 20, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Go read that book. Learn something. In the meantime, quit advocating vicious, unfair, and punitive policies.

 

OBTW: It's clear that the people at Groundspeak HQ also know next to nothing about statistics or they would never have implemented the system the way they have.

Link to comment

 

...blah blah blah...

 

Problem solved.

 

...blah blah blah...

 

 

You know, it's incredibly annoying to have people who quite evidently know next to nothing about statistics pushing for a statistics-based system for punishing cachers.

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

I have no intention of trying to educate you on the topic; you (and Microdot) are the ones who are advocating this ridiculous and punitive policy. I know it's pointless, but it just seems to me that knowing even a tiny bit about what you are talking about would greatly diminish the extent to which your arguments make you appear to be thoughtless and ignorant.

 

I will give you a clue as to how to proceed. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your precious statistical test has a 95% accuracy. What do you think the ratio of false-positives to true positives would be? If you say 1 in 20, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Go read that book. Learn something. In the meantime, quit advocating vicious, unfair, and punitive policies.

 

OBTW: It's clear that the people at Groundspeak HQ also know next to nothing about statistics or they would never have implemented the system the way they have.

 

Why not exercise your obviously superior intellect with a few related and explanatory examples?

 

At least then we all might learn something useful or interesting.

Link to comment

Why not exercise your obviously superior intellect with a few related and explanatory examples?

 

I don't have superior intellect. I have superior knowledge, since I have worked in this area for many years.

 

I am guessing you can read. Educate yourself. I don't want to even dignify the vicious (yes, I used that word on purpose) proposals in this thread by any contribution other than pointing out that they are based on ignorance.

Link to comment

Why not exercise your obviously superior intellect with a few related and explanatory examples?

 

I don't have superior intellect. I have superior knowledge, since I have worked in this area for many years.

 

I am guessing you can read. Educate yourself. I don't want to even dignify the vicious (yes, I used that word on purpose) proposals in this thread by any contribution other than pointing out that they are based on ignorance.

While I'm not a statistician, I think I can see where fizzymagic is coming from. Consider the mythical land of Cachetopia, where all the caches are well maintained. Cachetopians still log DNFs occasionally, though, because there are many muggles in that fair land and sudden downpours are frequent, bringing out swarms of mosquitoes and legions of leeches, also many of the caches have clever camo that's not easy to spot in poor light. But fizzy's GHS with its 95% accuracy will still give a poor score to one in twenty of those caches, and even if its accuracy rises to 99% here, that's still one in a hundred caches getting a poor score. Every one of those will be a false positive, though, so regardless of how good the algorithm is, its success rate at identifying maintenance shirkers is zero.

 

Sure, Cachetopia doesn't exist, but there are lots of places where the caches are generally in good nick and, for those that fall by the wayside, the local community is proactive in logging NMs and NAs. It's in places like these that the GHS will perform poorly and, if extended to CHS, would unfairly punish COs through no fault of their own.

 

The GHS may be a useful tool in high cache-density areas where set-and-forget pill bottles and maintenance-shirkers are the norm, but one size most assuredly doesn't fit all and there are many parts of the world where it may well cause more problems and inconvenience than it solves.

Link to comment

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

I will give you a clue as to how to proceed. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your precious statistical test has a 95% accuracy. What do you think the ratio of false-positives to true positives would be? If you say 1 in 20, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Go read that book. Learn something.

 

Cool! A puzzle cache in the Forums!

A little web surfing led me to some guy's Theorem with P[A] and P[b|A] and stuff. The equation needed a number for the actual amount of bad caches, P[A], so I picked 1%. If I did everything correctly, I find that a cache which is identified as bad has only a 16% chance that it really is bad. I can't find a Geochecker, though.

 

In any case.... To the point of the thread: I'm siding with those who say any algorithm (no matter how accurate) should only be one of the tools available to Reviewers, not the final decider. The experience and judgement of those Reviewers can be applied to a list of possibles generated by any algorithm. (Sorry Reviewers - looks like you can't retire yet!)

Link to comment

 

The arguments you are making are bad arguments because they completely ignore how statistics works. Go and get an introductory text and educate yourself a little before advocating a policy that will needlessly penalize good cachers and good caches.

 

I will give you a clue as to how to proceed. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your precious statistical test has a 95% accuracy. What do you think the ratio of false-positives to true positives would be? If you say 1 in 20, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Go read that book. Learn something.

 

Cool! A puzzle cache in the Forums!

A little web surfing led me to some guy's Theorem with P[A] and P[b|A] and stuff. The equation needed a number for the actual amount of bad caches, P[A], so I picked 1%. If I did everything correctly, I find that a cache which is identified as bad has only a 16% chance that it really is bad. I can't find a Geochecker, though.

 

In any case.... To the point of the thread: I'm siding with those who say any algorithm (no matter how accurate) should only be one of the tools available to Reviewers, not the final decider. The experience and judgement of those Reviewers can be applied to a list of possibles generated by any algorithm. (Sorry Reviewers - looks like you can't retire yet!)

 

Then were all on the same side. I don't think anyone as suggested it be anything but a tool to be used by reviewers although some have insinuated just that.

Link to comment

Sure, Cachetopia doesn't exist, but there are lots of places where the caches are generally in good nick and, for those that fall by the wayside, the local community is proactive in logging NMs and NAs. It's in places like these that the GHS will perform poorly and, if extended to CHS, would unfairly punish COs through no fault of their own.

I was so surprised when someone recently cited my area as proof that there are lots of bad caches, when the fact is we don't really have a problem with bad caches here at all. That made me start wondering whether the whole panic over the terrible state of geocaches was anything more than a similar statistical mistake.

Link to comment

Sure, Cachetopia doesn't exist, but there are lots of places where the caches are generally in good nick and, for those that fall by the wayside, the local community is proactive in logging NMs and NAs. It's in places like these that the GHS will perform poorly and, if extended to CHS, would unfairly punish COs through no fault of their own.

I was so surprised when someone recently cited my area as proof that there are lots of bad caches, when the fact is we don't really have a problem with bad caches here at all. That made me start wondering whether the whole panic over the terrible state of geocaches was anything more than a similar statistical mistake.

 

What's your definition of a bad cache?

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...