Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
TheAuthorityFigures

Geocache Health Score?

Recommended Posts

I saw this term in another thread and was unfamiliar with it. Looked it up in the help section, but I was wondering if there was a way as a CO to "look up" my GHS? I'm curious, just as I track my credit score, is there a way to track my GHS on GS?

Share this post


Link to post

Each of the individual geocaches that you've hidden has a Geocache Health Score. And no, it is not visible.

 

Some community members in another thread are speculating about an aggregate health score for a person, based on their cache hides.

 

I'm glad you took the time to learn about the Geocache Health Score by reading the article in the Help Center.

Share this post


Link to post

Each of the individual geocaches that you've hidden has a Geocache Health Score. And no, it is not visible.

 

Some community members in another thread are speculating about an aggregate health score for a person, based on their cache hides.

 

I'm glad you took the time to learn about the Geocache Health Score by reading the article in the Help Center.

 

Thanks for responding. Yes, I know it's not visible, just as my credit score is not visible, but I have the ability to find out my credit score. I guess I was wondering if a CO can also request their GHS?

Share this post


Link to post

Each of the individual geocaches that you've hidden has a Geocache Health Score. And no, it is not visible.

 

Some community members in another thread are speculating about an aggregate health score for a person, based on their cache hides.

 

I'm glad you took the time to learn about the Geocache Health Score by reading the article in the Help Center.

 

Thanks for responding. Yes, I know it's not visible, just as my credit score is not visible, but I have the ability to find out my credit score. I guess I was wondering if a CO can also request their GHS?

 

I don't think it would be to difficult to figure out whether a cache you own is 'healthy' or not.

Does it have a lot of DNFs in a row with no response from you.

Are there any NMs on the cache?

Have you received a reviewer note or disable?

Have you checked the cache and posted any OMs?

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

I know people get curious, otherwise i've never understood why people get so excited to see their credit score. They know what their credit habits are so i'd think it would be fairly obvious to them where they stand. No doubt it's going to be down if they over extend themselves, apply for more credit than they need, and/or are late paying bills. I know my habits, therefore never felt the need to check my credit score. I know my geocaching habits as well so i'm fairly certain i know about where my GHS stands.

Share this post


Link to post

I know people get curious, otherwise i've never understood why people get so excited to see their credit score. They know what their credit habits are so i'd think it would be fairly obvious to them where they stand. No doubt it's going to be down if they over extend themselves, apply for more credit than they need, and/or are late paying bills. I know my habits, therefore never felt the need to check my credit score. I know my geocaching habits as well so i'm fairly certain i know about where my GHS stands.

 

All this is correct and I agree with you. As stated, the question was one out of curiosity is all.

Share this post


Link to post

Each of the individual geocaches that you've hidden has a Geocache Health Score. And no, it is not visible.

 

Some community members in another thread are speculating about an aggregate health score for a person, based on their cache hides.

 

I'm glad you took the time to learn about the Geocache Health Score by reading the article in the Help Center.

 

Thanks for responding. Yes, I know it's not visible, just as my credit score is not visible, but I have the ability to find out my credit score. I guess I was wondering if a CO can also request their GHS?

 

I don't think it would be to difficult to figure out whether a cache you own is 'healthy' or not.

Does it have a lot of DNFs in a row with no response from you.

Are there any NMs on the cache?

Have you received a reviewer note or disable?

Have you checked the cache and posted any OMs?

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad. So yes, a cache can have a poor GHS without the CO being aware of it until the dreaded email comes.

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

I know people get curious, otherwise i've never understood why people get so excited to see their credit score. They know what their credit habits are so i'd think it would be fairly obvious to them where they stand. No doubt it's going to be down if they over extend themselves, apply for more credit than they need, and/or are late paying bills. I know my habits, therefore never felt the need to check my credit score. I know my geocaching habits as well so i'm fairly certain i know about where my GHS stands.

Even when your credit habits are healthy -- or your cache maintenance habits -- you should check the score in order to find out about mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post

It might actually be useful for a CO with more than a handful of caches to sort their active caches in order of Geocache Health Score, to make it easier to identify which of their caches are most in need of attention.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know people get curious, otherwise i've never understood why people get so excited to see their credit score. They know what their credit habits are so i'd think it would be fairly obvious to them where they stand. No doubt it's going to be down if they over extend themselves, apply for more credit than they need, and/or are late paying bills. I know my habits, therefore never felt the need to check my credit score. I know my geocaching habits as well so i'm fairly certain i know about where my GHS stands.

Even when your credit habits are healthy -- or your cache maintenance habits -- you should check the score in order to find out about mistakes.

Credit REPORT, yes. Credit SCORE, not so much. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I know people get curious, otherwise i've never understood why people get so excited to see their credit score. They know what their credit habits are so i'd think it would be fairly obvious to them where they stand. No doubt it's going to be down if they over extend themselves, apply for more credit than they need, and/or are late paying bills. I know my habits, therefore never felt the need to check my credit score. I know my geocaching habits as well so i'm fairly certain i know about where my GHS stands.

Even when your credit habits are healthy -- or your cache maintenance habits -- you should check the score in order to find out about mistakes.

Credit REPORT, yes. Credit SCORE, not so much. :)

Exactly! Not that it matters to anyone else but i run one report from one of the 3 credit reporting agencies every 4 months. Matter of fact, i was surprised when the report i ran in January showed that i had a 2nd wife named Barbara. :o

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter? This thread is about whether a CO can look up their caches' scores and I was responding to LOne.R's list of things affecting it, which omitted the documented "long time since found" criterion, and the statement Does it have a lot of DNFs in a row with no response from you which implies a string of DNFs requires a CO response, which is not the case if none of them had anything to do with cache health. Five people in a row saying "there were too many muggles near GZ" doesn't mean the cache requires maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post

So, I guess the answer to my original query is a no? There's no way to request a GHS report?

 

I think that if the GHS were visible, reviewers would end up with more work and hassle dealing with more emails from argumentative owners.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

So, I guess the answer to my original query is a no? There's no way to request a GHS report?

 

I think that if the GHS were visible, reviewers would end up with more work and hassle dealing with more emails from argumentative owners.

Was thinking this as well. Too many people would feel the score was wrong/unfair and would want to contact their reviewer or Groundspeak to complain.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter?

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

To what degree?

More than zero, and much more than zero for some caches.

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

Again, to what degree?

We have no idea. That's one of the problems.

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

OMG, LOL! This coming from the person that's spent two threads supporting the unproven claim that artificial scores applied mechanically will solve problems that haven't been demonstrated. You can't get a blacker pot!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

OMG, LOL! This coming from the person that's spent two threads supporting the unproven claim that artificial scores applied mechanically will solve problems that haven't been demonstrated. You can't get a blacker pot!

 

That's funny :laughing:

 

What I actually did was took part in two threads which explored the idea that scores like the one in use by Groundspeak as an indicator of cache health might help with problems that I've seen in my local caching environment.

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter?

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

Huh? What speculation am I trying to pass off as facts? I said these things: the GHS uses DNFs as in indicator of poor cache health (the Help Centre page says so and personal experience confirmed it); DNFs don't always mean a cache is missing, even if there's a string of them; the GHS algorithm can't distinguish between DNFs that relate to cache health and those that don't; and a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor GHS (the Help Centre page says this too).

 

Edit: fixed acronyms

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter?

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

Huh? What speculation am I trying to pass off as facts? I said these things: the GHS uses DNFs as in indicator of poor cache health (the Help Centre page says so and personal experience confirmed it); DNFs don't always mean a cache is missing, even if there's a string of them; the GHS algorithm can't distinguish between DNFs that relate to cache health and those that don't; and a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor GHS (the Help Centre page says this too).

 

Edit: fixed acronyms

 

You actually said that the geocache health score treats all DNF's as bad and that just not being found for a long time can also give a geocache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

I asked to what degree in which case because I felt that your terminology suggested the Geocache Health Score treats those two parameters aggressively but it could also be true that those two parameters have a tiny impact on the Geocache Health Score.

 

The fact is that none of us know how to what degree those factors impact on the Geocache Health Score. That's what I wanted to clarify.

 

I assume you're referring to the information on this page when you claim that a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

That page actually says:

 

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

Hopefully now you see the disconnects between what you said and the facts as we know them. You might consider them subtle differences but they are certainly biased towards the GHS being a bad thing. I don't think the GHS is a bad thing - I think it's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter?

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

Huh? What speculation am I trying to pass off as facts? I said these things: the GHS uses DNFs as in indicator of poor cache health (the Help Centre page says so and personal experience confirmed it); DNFs don't always mean a cache is missing, even if there's a string of them; the GHS algorithm can't distinguish between DNFs that relate to cache health and those that don't; and a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor GHS (the Help Centre page says this too).

 

Edit: fixed acronyms

 

You actually said that the geocache health score treats all DNF's as bad and that just not being found for a long time can also give a geocache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

I asked to what degree in which case because I felt that your terminology suggested the Geocache Health Score treats those two parameters aggressively but it could also be true that those two parameters have a tiny impact on the Geocache Health Score.

 

The fact is that none of us know how to what degree those factors impact on the Geocache Health Score. That's what I wanted to clarify.

 

I assume you're referring to the information on this page when you claim that a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

That page actually says:

 

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

Hopefully now you see the disconnects between what you said and the facts as we know them. You might consider them subtle differences but they are certainly biased towards the GHS being a bad thing. I don't think the GHS is a bad thing - I think it's a good thing.

If you go back to the original Release Notes thread announcing the algorithm, and the response from the lackeys in that thread, it's pretty clear the intent is to send the email when a cache simply hasn't been found for a long time.

 

The GHS might well be a good thing in places where cache maintenance is an endemic problem, but that's not true everywhere, and in places where the false positives outnumber the true positives, it's a bad thing. My other main concerns are its reliance on DNFs as an indicator of poor cache health, particularly in the absence of any NMs or NAs, and the lack of any clear way for a CO to properly respond to a false positive.

Share this post


Link to post

So, I guess the answer to my original query is a no? There's no way to request a GHS report?

 

I think that if the GHS were visible, reviewers would end up with more work and hassle dealing with more emails from argumentative owners.

 

Muahahaha... Oh yes... we all know that. I would love to know my GHS so I know where I stand. Not to have a fight with them. Do I need to improve or am I in good standing. The problem is, many CO dont like to hear ANYTHING negatives about their "wonderful" cache. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

OMG, LOL! This coming from the person that's spent two threads supporting the unproven claim that artificial scores applied mechanically will solve problems that haven't been demonstrated. You can't get a blacker pot!

 

That's funny :laughing:

 

What I actually did was took part in two threads which explored the idea that scores like the one in use by Groundspeak as an indicator of cache health might help with problems that I've seen in my local caching environment.

You say that as if it changes the fact that everything you've said has been based on your speculation passed off as facts.

Share this post


Link to post

Many (most?) DNFs have nothing to do with cache health (too many muggles about, a sudden onset of rain, someone just looking in the wrong place or not spotting the clever camo) and don't require any response from the CO, but the Cache Health Score doesn't know any different and treats all DNFs as bad.

 

To what degree?

 

Edit to add: And don't forget, just not being found for a long time can also give a cache a poor GHS.

 

Again, to what degree?

 

Does it matter?

 

Only if you're trying to pass off your speculation as facts - which it looks like you are.

Huh? What speculation am I trying to pass off as facts? I said these things: the GHS uses DNFs as in indicator of poor cache health (the Help Centre page says so and personal experience confirmed it); DNFs don't always mean a cache is missing, even if there's a string of them; the GHS algorithm can't distinguish between DNFs that relate to cache health and those that don't; and a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor GHS (the Help Centre page says this too).

 

Edit: fixed acronyms

 

You actually said that the geocache health score treats all DNF's as bad and that just not being found for a long time can also give a geocache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

I asked to what degree in which case because I felt that your terminology suggested the Geocache Health Score treats those two parameters aggressively but it could also be true that those two parameters have a tiny impact on the Geocache Health Score.

 

The fact is that none of us know how to what degree those factors impact on the Geocache Health Score. That's what I wanted to clarify.

 

I assume you're referring to the information on this page when you claim that a long time between finds can also give a cache a poor Geocache Health Score.

 

That page actually says:

 

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

Hopefully now you see the disconnects between what you said and the facts as we know them. You might consider them subtle differences but they are certainly biased towards the GHS being a bad thing. I don't think the GHS is a bad thing - I think it's a good thing.

If you go back to the original Release Notes thread announcing the algorithm, and the response from the lackeys in that thread, it's pretty clear the intent is to send the email when a cache simply hasn't been found for a long time.

 

I've skimmed that thread taking into account mainly posts by Groundspeak representatives and I can't see anything which substantiates your claim.

 

From personal experience, I have caches which haven't been found for months on end and I am yet to receive an email from Groundspeak about them.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/25/2017 at 0:54 PM, Keystone said:

Each of the individual geocaches that you've hidden has a Geocache Health Score. ...

Does the algorithm for Geocache Health Score pull any data from "Your Unpublished Disabled Caches" (i.e. caches that are in preparation, but not yet submitted for review or published)?  

In the Help Center, Geocache Health Score is described in Section 6.3, within Chapter 6 "Ownership after publication."  This suggests that Geocache Health Score is based on just published caches.

Even if all of your published caches are properly maintained, however, if you have an unpublished disabled cache, when you start the process to prepare a new listing, you get the prompt page "Your Existing Geocaches May Need Attention.  Before you submit a new geocache, it looks like one or more of your existing geocaches may need some attention:  
   [GC..... - Unpublished, Temporarily Disabled]  
You may continue creating a new geocache, however, we recommend making sure your existing geocaches are in tip-top shape before you do."

 

Share this post


Link to post

It'd be nice for cache owners to see the health score of their caches to incentivize those that are motivated to make better cache maintenance and placement decisions. But I suspect it will remain a secret.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, bflentje said:

It'd be nice for cache owners to see the health score of their caches to incentivize those that are motivated to make better cache maintenance and placement decisions. But I suspect it will remain a secret.

I think it will remain a secret to prevent a large number of disgruntled cache owners from complaining that their health score is not fair or accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think it will remain a secret to prevent a large number of disgruntled cache owners from complaining that their health score is not fair or accurate.

Boy there's some truth to that,  although disgruntling bad cache owners wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I'd at least like to know how it's calculated and to what degree certain "activities" effect it.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Boy there's some truth to that,  although disgruntling bad cache owners wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I'd at least like to know how it's calculated and to what degree certain "activities" effect it.  

We don't know the algorithm, but we know what effects it to some extent.   (What is published is Quoted at the bottom of this post).

So things we can do as owners to improve the score:

- Address issues and perform maintenance if NM or NA logged.

- Adjust the D/T rating if needed.    (e.g. if a cache is getting a lot of DNFs but is there, perhaps the D should be higher?).  

Additionally, if we desire:

- Add hints or change the hide to make it easier, to reduce DNFs.

- For a cache which seldom gets attempted, hide other caches in the area to encourage more finders.

Then there are some things we don't know if they help or not. e.g.

- Check the cache and log a Owner Maintenance after a DNF if the cache is there.

 

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure all those things have an effect.   I'd love to know the specifics so I could put on my reviewers hat and see exactly how I'd interpret these cache scores and how I think I'd handle them.   Probably no different than there being handled now.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sure all those things have an effect.   I'd love to know the specifics so I could put on my reviewers hat and see exactly how I'd interpret these cache scores and how I think I'd handle them.   Probably no different than there being handled now.  

Would that be a tin hat by any chance? :D

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Would that be a tin hat by any chance? :D

In my case probably a straw hat.

I would recommend something more sturdy.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'd at least like to know how it's calculated and to what degree certain "activities" effect it.  

I would imagine that something like this is not static. So even if they revealed the formula they're using this month, that information would be obsolete next month. It might not change as often as Google changes its search algorithms, but I'm sure it's being tweaked on a regular basis.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

I would imagine that something like this is not static. So even if they revealed the formula they're using this month, that information would be obsolete next month. It might not change as often as Google changes its search algorithms, but I'm sure it's being tweaked on a regular basis.

I highly doubt it's that sophisticated.

Share this post


Link to post

The cache health algorithm is pretty sophisticated, and it's tweaked from time to time in response to feedback.  One such tweak is in testing right now, for deployment in the near future.  Some of that feedback comes from reviewers, who can see each cache's health score.  We can, and do, question why a cache triggered a reminder email to the owner under certain circumstances that, as geocachers, we'd call premature, and where, as reviewers, we would not take action.  The opposite is also true:  "why didn't this 1/1 cache with eight straight DNF's over the past year not trigger an email reminder to the owner?"

Geocaching HQ is unlikely ever to share the exact details of the algorithm, or the health score for a particular cache.  That could cause reactions ranging from "why is my cache rated a B+ when I think it should be an A+?" to people gaming the system in various ways to trick the algorithm into producing an artificially high health score.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post

Keystone,  only a thousand to go!

Oops, sorry to be off topic,, but the 19,000 was kinda noticeable. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

Does that mean due to a string of DNFs, or might it happen just because nobody looked for it in a long time?

It also makes me wonder if a health score or CO might be penalized for hiding a cache too well? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the algorithm accounts for high D/T in that respect?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RufusClupea said:

Does that mean due to a string of DNFs, or might it happen just because nobody looked for it in a long time?

It also makes me wonder if a health score or CO might be penalized for hiding a cache too well? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the algorithm accounts for high D/T in that respect?

A D/T rating doesn't replace an active cache owner.  In my area, it is usually the absent cache owner that gets penalized, not the high Difficulty caches.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, RufusClupea said:

Does that mean due to a string of DNFs, or might it happen just because nobody looked for it in a long time?

It also makes me wonder if a health score or CO might be penalized for hiding a cache too well? :rolleyes:

Perhaps the algorithm accounts for high D/T in that respect?

Just going by what is published (quoted above) both DNFs and time are considered.   So a cache which hasn't been found in 5 years might get a lower score even without DNFs.   And yes it also takes D/T into account.     So a 1/1 cache not found for 5 years will be treated differently than a 5/5 not found for 5 years.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Something that concerns me a little is that, in past threads on this subject, it was repeatedly said that CHS false positives don't matter because a reviewer will always look at the logs before taking any action and can easily see if the DNFs that triggered the low health score actually had anything to do with the cache or were just from things like encroaching muggles, failing light, rain, high tide, tired kids, etc.

But now we've learnt that the CHS played a part in the algorithm that selected the virtual cache recipients, with no human oversight to dismiss false positives. I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health. With the CHS now firmly entrenched in the system, I wouldn't be surprised to see more initiatives like this based on it, to the peril of those COs who, in spite of their best efforts, have caches getting DNFs for all sorts of non-maintenance reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Something that concerns me a little is that, in past threads on this subject, it was repeatedly said that CHS false positives don't matter because a reviewer will always look at the logs before taking any action and can easily see if the DNFs that triggered the low health score actually had anything to do with the cache or were just from things like encroaching muggles, failing light, rain, high tide, tired kids, etc.

But now we've learnt that the CHS played a part in the algorithm that selected the virtual cache recipients, with no human oversight to dismiss false positives. I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health. With the CHS now firmly entrenched in the system, I wouldn't be surprised to see more initiatives like this based on it, to the peril of those COs who, in spite of their best efforts, have caches getting DNFs for all sorts of non-maintenance reasons.

Where's that popcorn emoji?

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Keystone said:

Geocaching HQ is unlikely ever to share the exact details of the algorithm, or the health score for a particular cache.  That could cause reactions ranging from "why is my cache rated a B+ when I think it should be an A+?" to people gaming the system in various ways to trick the algorithm into producing an artificially high health score.

There's something I didn't know.  I don't recall seeing whether a high or low score is good.   

So, we know several things that will lower the score (multiple DNFs,  NM logs ...) but it would be good for a cache owner to know what actions will increase the score (and what won't).  I remember when we first saw the red wrench on caches that needed maintenance and it wasn't clear to many that enabling a cache that had been disabled would not clear the wrench.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Something that concerns me a little is that, in past threads on this subject, it was repeatedly said that CHS false positives don't matter because a reviewer will always look at the logs before taking any action and can easily see if the DNFs that triggered the low health score actually had anything to do with the cache or were just from things like encroaching muggles, failing light, rain, high tide, tired kids, etc.

But now we've learnt that the CHS played a part in the algorithm that selected the virtual cache recipients, with no human oversight to dismiss false positives. I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health. With the CHS now firmly entrenched in the system, I wouldn't be surprised to see more initiatives like this based on it, to the peril of those COs who, in spite of their best efforts, have caches getting DNFs for all sorts of non-maintenance reasons.

It isn't a drama needing popcorn, but it is a valid point.   We are told (in the help center) that DNFs are one part of the Health Score.   And it is the part that COs have the least control over.   I can try to minimize the impact, e.g. by making the cache easier to find, and/or adjusting the D/T ratings (presumably the DNFs on a high D/T cache have less impact to the score than a low D/T cache).    But if a bus with 20 cachers heads out to find my cache and the bus breaks down.. and those 20 cachers all use the "I pressed go to navigate so it must be a DNF" method then my caches health score will suffer.       And it isn't clear what, if anything I can do about that.   If check the cache is there and log an OM, does that offset those 20 DNFs?

The more things the CHS gets used for, the more COs will want to know what their score is or how they can improve it.

Edited by redsox_mark

Share this post


Link to post

Well I'd give them the benefit of the doubt against the extreme example that have often been raised in the past, and have weighed it down.  ie, I would assume (hope) that they don't weigh 20 DNFs posted on the same day (since there's no way to know if it's one group or many) the same as an unbroken streak of 20 days with DNFs. The latter would/should weigh more heavily (with context) than 1 day with 20 dnfs.

And if that hasn't been accounted for yet, well, here's your suggestion to include that occurrence in the algorithm :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Well I'd give them the benefit of the doubt against the extreme example that have often been raised in the past, and have weighed it down.  ie, I would assume (hope) that they don't weigh 20 DNFs posted on the same day (since there's no way to know if it's one group or many) the same as an unbroken streak of 20 days with DNFs. The latter would/should weigh more heavily (with context) than 1 day with 20 dnfs.

And if that hasn't been accounted for yet, well, here's your suggestion to include that occurrence in the algorithm :P

I gave an extreme example.   The point remains that DNFs can impact the score, and there is only so much a CO can do about that.   I know we just have to live with that, but I don't really like it.   I don't like that the score of my cache may be impacted even by a single person (if not 20) who logs a DNF saying they pressed "go" but then decided not to complete my cache.    But I have to live with it.    

If the CHS gets used more and more for different things, I can see COs objecting to DNF logs on their caches which say "I didn't really try".   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...