Jump to content

Geocache Health Score?


Recommended Posts

oh I'm not disagreeing. I was just addressing a potential aspect of the algorithm that should hopefully already be addressed... There's certainly no way to tell a DNF from someone who actually searched and one from someone who didn't even get to gz, unless there's some kind of intellgent language analysis of the log text. Even then, there's no guaranteed positive. Every property of the algorithm has room for error, that's why it's a combined score. It's just a matter of reducing the false positives as much as possible. I trust GS is doing their best to address concerns that are raised.
My guess is that by now any false positives returned are much more complex to attempt to reduce, especially since the algorithm was first implemented.

Link to comment
3 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.

hmmm, this does give a good reason to ponder the CHS. I'm not sure I care a whole lot about missing out on this opportunity to place a virtual cache but with the thought that we could miss out on other opportunities in the future does kind of concern me. 

We are not favorites of park and grabs, urban caches, light poll throw downs or any other hides that might be in line with those. We prefer to go after and there for hide hiking caches, wilderness caches, puzzle caches and the like. This means we have several/many caches that are not found very often. Some of our NCT caches (North Country Trail) that require hiking only have not been found for a year or more, the people that do go after them really enjoy them tho. We have a couple wilderness caches, Delirium (GC1ZMX0) that hasn't been found in 6 years, it has some fantastic logs! Another in that catagory is The Far Side (GC152PH) it hasn't been found in 5 years but also has some great logs! 

So for having (in our opinion) caches that are a bit more fun, get you out in the wild but might not net you 65 smileys in a day, we might be penalized in the future??

We'll just stick with what we like I guess.................

Link to comment

In the case of dnf's...... I like to find the cache that I'm hunting for as much as the next person but short of giving a hint that out right tells you exactly where to find it, presuming the last person put it back in the correct spot, there is no way you can insure they will find it. I, personally, don't want a hint that gives it all away, what is the purpose of my trying to find it that way??

We have many dnf's over the years, some we have gone back to over and over until we finally found it, others we move on. In the long run this is supposed to be a game we enjoy, right?!!?? Over regulate it and we are gonna have people move on.....

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, usyoopers said:

hmmm, this does give a good reason to ponder the CHS. I'm not sure I care a whole lot about missing out on this opportunity to place a virtual cache but with the thought that we could miss out on other opportunities in the future does kind of concern me. 

We are not favorites of park and grabs, urban caches, light poll throw downs or any other hides that might be in line with those. We prefer to go after and there for hide hiking caches, wilderness caches, puzzle caches and the like. This means we have several/many caches that are not found very often. Some of our NCT caches (North Country Trail) that require hiking only have not been found for a year or more, the people that do go after them really enjoy them tho. We have a couple wilderness caches, Delirium (GC1ZMX0) that hasn't been found in 6 years, it has some fantastic logs! Another in that catagory is The Far Side (GC152PH) it hasn't been found in 5 years but also has some great logs! 

So for having (in our opinion) caches that are a bit more fun, get you out in the wild but might not net you 65 smileys in a day, we might be penalized in the future??

We'll just stick with what we like I guess.................

All of this is the sort of feedback GS needs so the algorithm can take the situation into account if they feel this indeed something to consider as a positive. If our attitude is less "I'm going to miss out because the algorithm is flawed" and more "these are situations that should be considered good or bad so that it's more accurate", then we won't have to worry about missing out - especially for an algrithm that is intended to identify "good caches/owners"... unless of course you really want to have not-good caches. :P

Link to comment

Honestly, it's just like SEO algorithms for search engines. Imagine the sorts of discussions site owners have furious at google for why their website isn't showing near the top of certain keyword searches. This sort of thing isn't new :) if they release the algorithm, people will "play" it. The best way to have good search results is just to be clear and concise, and don't try to "cheat" the system. Even over-optimization can be detrimental. So for caching, be sure GS knows what's good/bad, when false positives occur, and trust that they'll hone the algorithm to take that all into consideration if they agree with it. Then just be a good cache owner without trying too hard (for the algorithm).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health.

There's already a thread for complaining about not getting picked.  No need to turn this into another.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, hzoi said:
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health.

There's already a thread for complaining about not getting picked.  No need to turn this into another.

What this thread needs is more moderators :rolleyes:

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
15 minutes ago, hzoi said:
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health.

There's already a thread for complaining about not getting picked.  No need to turn this into another.

What this thread needs is more moderators :rolleyes:

No, what it really needs is to turn into another 10-page train wreck.  But I'm sure you and Jeff can have that covered, so I'll leave y'all to it.

Link to comment

 

3 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.

At least for my country I have no indication that DNFs kicked out possible candidates for RVs, but maybe the otherwise eligible candidates around here aren't too affected by DNFs.

Around here the only thing (for the bystander) that seems to have kicked you out from being eligible as RV owner despite very high overall cache quality for all remaining other caches and no unanswered NM etc. was

owning a longer unfound (here CHS can play a role) cache with 0 Favs / 0 finds ('overall cache quality' can play a role). So it seems that the worst impact for otherwise perfect looking owners (no unanswered NA, NM, no DNF series, very high percentages of favorite points) here was one (or two) caches that were not fund for a longer time.

Not knowing the algorithms there are various thinkable ways for the same result, both via CHS and via 'overall quality':

A cache without finds by Premium Members (and without finds by non-Premium Members) also has no favorite points at all and might also be unfound for longer time, without any DNFs or anything else.

thinkable step A: if you own a cache with 0 favorite points - no matter how old the cache is - end of quality algorithm - you are out

thinkable step B: if you own a cache with 0 favorite points - if the cache is 'fresh' enough - proceed with another step

thinkable step C: Any cache with 0 favorite points is taken into consideration as having a favorite percentage of 0 / x = 0% (for caches not found by any PM x = 0 ;) and x > 0 for caches already found by PM) and proceed with next step.

thinkable step D: Any cache unfound for a longer timespan (maybe depending on D/T) lowers the CHS under the level that allows you to be eligible for a virtual reward.

If C (or something else that keeps you in play), then it seems (for the bystander) that D (or something else that leads to the same result) is also necessary.

This example might be a rare case, but these cachers certainly would have improved their outcome by promoting/allowing ;) a found it 'in time'.

Disabling your cache for a year and cachers keep finding your cache without DNFs obviously still let you be eligible, CHS doesn't mention 'time disabled' as criterion. ;) Having your cache disabled for some time, also with NM obviously still let some stay being eligible too.

For the majority of caches the D/T DNF 'longer unfound' presets for CHS might be appropriate, but for caches that are remote or outlying for some reason (not necessarily 'locally') a parameter 'expected visitor frequency' and even 'expected time to FTF' would be very helpful if to be included for weighing 'longer unfound'.

There are places that are not remote at all and without any restrictions, but are visited nevertheless only from April/May to September, for others the season is mid-July to end of September, but only if the weather is good enough, for others every three years someone might try the cache despite the cache being only 2/3 because this valley isn't a hot spot and has no other caches etc.

On the other hand some caches seem to be allowed to vegetate too long, like several months full of DNFs, NM, disable, NA, NA and nothing else happening in the heart of a city.

 

Link to comment

At least in my area I'm not seeing any obvious signs that the Health Score is getting neglected caches archived (or fixed). It still seems that NAs are the preferred method. There are currently 916 caches with red wrenches within 35 miles of my location.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

....the "I pressed go to navigate so it must be a DNF" method....

and

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

I don't like that the score of my cache may be impacted even by a single person ... who logs a DNF saying they pressed "go" but then decided not to complete my cache.

People actually DO that ‽  I've had to give up on many I've pressed "GO" on, realizing at some point or other that they're beyond my ability (T--not D--or distance :)) but I've never considered those DNFs.  I don't consider it a DNF unless I can't find one at GZ.  Then it's the internalized debate of whether I've missed something, it's been muggled, or something else.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

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

Caution: don't assume that the Health Score is expressed as letter grades.  I need to keep my posts on this subject somewhat vague, but while also trying to be helpful to the extent that I can.  So, I am fudging on the details a bit.  It is just as likely that the Health Score is expressed on a 1 to 10 scale with 1 being "awesome" and anything higher than 8 triggering an email to the cache owner.

I wanted to avoid any embarrassment - don't quote me as saying that the Health Score is on a scale from A+ to F, because that hasn't been confirmed as true.  There is a scale, I can confirm that.

Link to comment

The other thing that people keep seeming to forget is the 4000 cutoff and the clear indication that not every "good owner" got in. c'mon, there are definitely more than 4000 "qualified" owners. Stop thinking that somehow just because you did get a virtual that your CHS was even in any way "bad". (that is to say, beyond what we know confirmed, there's no indicator that says 'you failed because...')

Theoretically there could have been an 8000-way tie and only 4000 were picked at random. The only benefit to discussing the algorithm is really to figure out collectively how we can be better cache owners for the sake of the community. Don't try to game the system.  The algorithm is intended to evolve and get better at what it does.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

Even though the Health Score algorithm has not been published, there are a couple important sentences in the description in the Help Center article:

“A low Health Score provides an indication that the cache may need attention from the owner.”

“If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner.”

Both of these statements make it clear the score is only compared to a threshold.  If a score is above that, nothing happens.  It is the low scores below the threshold that matter.  An A+ has the same significance as a D-.  A miss is as good as a mile.  Any effort to marginally improve the score will make little difference as long as the cache is in decent shape such that its score is above the threshold.  A DNF here and there (around 10% seems typical, based on other posts on the subject) is not a going to be a problem, it’s a long consecutive string of them that suggest a problem.  It’s a non-response to NA or NM that indicates a problem.  The intent is to thin the herd.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, RufusClupea said:

and

People actually DO that ‽  I've had to give up on many I've pressed "GO" on, realizing at some point or other that they're beyond my ability (T--not D--or distance :)) but I've never considered those DNFs.  I don't consider it a DNF unless I can't find one at GZ.  Then it's the internalized debate of whether I've missed something, it's been muggled, or something else.

Yes they do.. there have been long threads about that.      And based on forum posts, a lot of people do that.    

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Keystone said:
8 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

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

Caution: don't assume that the Health Score is expressed as letter grades.  I need to keep my posts on this subject somewhat vague, but while also trying to be helpful to the extent that I can.  So, I am fudging on the details a bit.  It is just as likely that the Health Score is expressed on a 1 to 10 scale with 1 being "awesome" and anything higher than 8 triggering an email to the cache owner.

I wanted to avoid any embarrassment - don't quote me as saying that the Health Score is on a scale from A+ to F, because that hasn't been confirmed as true.  There is a scale, I can confirm that.

I wasn't really expecting letter grades, but just speculating on whether a higher number was better than a lower number.  Assuming it was on a scale, that it could be negative and positive integers, with a new cache starting at 0.  To me, a cache that has been found many times, with frequent owner maintenance logs should get a higher health score than one just published.  A newly published cache might have coordinate issues,  unknown permission (or angry neighbor issues).  Of course, a cache with coordinate issues is going to get a few DNFs before they're corrected.  I suppose you won't be able to tell us if a cache score can ever get higher than it's score when it's published.

I don't really care about the details of the score itself, but am more interesting seeing something clear on how a CO can increase their health score on one that may have had temporary issues.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Joe_L said:

Even though the Health Score algorithm has not been published, there are a couple important sentences in the description in the Help Center article:

“A low Health Score provides an indication that the cache may need attention from the owner.”

“If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner.”

Both of these statements make it clear the score is only compared to a threshold.  If a score is above that, nothing happens.  It is the low scores below the threshold that matter.  An A+ has the same significance as a D-.  A miss is as good as a mile.  Any effort to marginally improve the score will make little difference as long as the cache is in decent shape such that its score is above the threshold.  A DNF here and there (around 10% seems typical, based on other posts on the subject) is not a going to be a problem, it’s a long consecutive string of them that suggest a problem.  It’s a non-response to NA or NM that indicates a problem.  The intent is to thin the herd.

This was an astute post, thanks for contributing.  Of course, since you hide and find caches here in Pittsburgh, I'd expect that high level of intelligence.  ;)

I wanted to follow up on one point:  where you said that "if a score is above that, nothing happens."  While it's true that there is a threshold which, once crossed, triggers an automated reminder email to the cache owner, the score is useful even when the cache health score hasn't yet reached that threshold.  This is because reviewers can see each cache's health score.  If the score is close to the threshold, we can still take action even before the automatic reminder goes out.  I do this often.  I can also look at the score when I am alerted to a "Needs Archived" log or if I receive a complaint about a cache via email.  It can influence my decision.  Sometimes the score confirms my instinct to disable the cache page right away.  Sometimes it tells me that it's OK to wait a week or two, because by then the cache owner will have received a reminder note.  I'd rather see the cache owner respond to the automated reminder than for me to have to come in and disable their cache page, forcing them to act within the next few weeks.  I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of cache owners who do respond to the automated reminder.  And, the enhanced tools given to reviewers, like the cache health score, help me a lot in "keeping the game board clean" by identifying, disabling and archiving caches that are very likely missing, or which have other chronic, unaddressed maintenance issues.  I hope that you've noticed that too, Joe L, when looking at the cache map here in our home area.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
7 hours ago, hzoi said:
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't help wondering how many people missed out because their otherwise excellent caches had DNFs having nothing to do with cache health.

There's already a thread for complaining about not getting picked.  No need to turn this into another.

Where did I say I'm complaining about not being picked? This isn't about me, okay? I just wanted to raise a concern that something we were told was only a tool to help reviewers flush out bad caches is now being used for other things where there's no human oversight to catch the inevitable false positives that come from using DNF logs as a measure of cache health. Sorry if I'm out of line with this.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Where did I say I'm complaining about not being picked? This isn't about me, okay? I just wanted to raise a concern that something we were told was only a tool to help reviewers flush out bad caches is now being used for other things where there's no human oversight to catch the inevitable false positives that come from using DNF logs as a measure of cache health. Sorry if I'm out of line with this.

Don't be sorry - the officially appointed moderators here frown on the stifling of free speech by over zealous forum participants and your point was both reasonable, valid and fair.

Link to comment

New occurrence to share, and wondering if anyone been seeing this happen in their area, or if it's some experimental localized regional thing for Ontario:

Reviewers have been explicitly posting NM logs on caches with (supposedly) low CHS, at least as far as having even two DNFs after a Find. Checking around for some and I came across one with 61 finds, and 3 DNFs, two of which were most recent, and no other NM logs or issues - followed by the canned reviewer NM log:

Quote

Hello Fellow Geocacher,

You've contributed to the game some time in the past and the game would not have grown without contributions like yours. But sometimes life gets busy and we don't notice when there might be a problem with our contributions. This note is only meant to provide a helpful nudge that this geocache might need to be looked at. More than six months have passed since it was last found and there are at least two DNF logs that have been posted. These together suggests a problem might exist. We can't tell for sure of course and there can be any number of reasons why it hasn't been found lately.

With about two months until the snow really starts to fly that should be enough time to check on this cache. If you perform an on site check up then definitely log an "Owner Maintenance" so everyone knows it is ready to be found. Info about maintenance: https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility

At this point most prominent owners who've received these on their caches have just been posting plain OM logs to counter the NM when they feel there is zero problem with the cache (looks like many have also been responding appropriately though if there are problems either by doing a checkup or archiving).

 

This comment isn't so much to debate the CHS as it is to find out how wide-spread this particular pro-active reviewer action is. I haven't seen any posts about it in the forum here yet, which seems odd, because this is a pretty clear strategy to move possible-problem-caches-by-CHS along to a forced-maintenance-checkup-else-archival-in-due-time, which has been pondered in the forum previously as a pretty undesireable strategy the CHS might lead to...

Up until now the reviewers have been reportedly using the CHS to check out possible problems and disabling caches they feel likely have problems. Looks like some of these NM logs are on caches with recent logs that almost certainly don't even imply that they have problems. Maybe the NM log is less blatant than an outright disable without a NM.

Personally, these NM seem out of place by its definition, even though less direct than an outright disable. (considering a typical process of cacher NM --1mo-> Disable --1mo-> Archival).  At least the disables seemed to be on caches likely having problems, as opposed to NM on any cache that may have a low CHS.

It almost feels like the reviewers are encroaching on the community's tools :P like the "NM" was our way of informing the CO and/or reviewer that there was an issue. I've seen other comments that see this reviewer-posting-NM as a tricky way to sidestep community responsibility so that another reviewer would do the next review step and disable, now claiming the "unaddressed NM" as defense.

I'm not so much concerned about it happened as I am the impression it's giving. As long as the only results are actual bad-condition caches getting needed attention and/or eventual archival, then I don't have a problem with it.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

New occurrence to share, and wondering if anyone been seeing this happen in their area, or if it's some experimental localized regional thing for Ontario:

Reviewers have been explicitly posting NM logs on caches with (supposedly) low CHS, at least as far as having even two DNFs after a Find. Checking around for some and I came across one with 61 finds, and 3 DNFs, two of which were most recent, and no other NM logs or issues - followed by the canned reviewer NM log:

At this point most prominent owners who've received these on their caches have just been posting plain OM logs to counter the NM when they feel there is zero problem with the cache (looks like many have also been responding appropriately though if there are problems either by doing a checkup or archiving).

 

This comment isn't so much to debate the CHS as it is to find out how wide-spread this particular pro-active reviewer action is. I haven't seen any posts about it in the forum here yet, which seems odd, because this is a pretty clear strategy to move possible-problem-caches-by-CHS along to a forced-maintenance-checkup-else-archival-in-due-time, which has been pondered in the forum previously as a pretty undesireable strategy the CHS might lead to...

Up until now the reviewers have been reportedly using the CHS to check out possible problems and disabling caches they feel likely have problems. Looks like some of these NM logs are on caches with recent logs that almost certainly don't even imply that they have problems. Maybe the NM log is less blatant than an outright disable without a NM.

Personally, these NM seem out of place by its definition, even though less direct than an outright disable. (considering a typical process of cacher NM --1mo-> Disable --1mo-> Archival).  At least the disables seemed to be on caches likely having problems, as opposed to NM on any cache that may have a low CHS.

It almost feels like the reviewers are encroaching on the community's tools :P like the "NM" was our way of informing the CO and/or reviewer that there was an issue. I've seen other comments that see this reviewer-posting-NM as a tricky way to sidestep community responsibility so that another reviewer would do the next review step and disable, now claiming the "unaddressed NM" as defense.

I'm not so much concerned about it happened as I am the impression it's giving. As long as the only results are actual bad-condition caches getting needed attention and/or eventual archival, then I don't have a problem with it.

An example of one:

 

GC2RZ9D

Rated D2

Latest logs are 2 DNFs.

 
Quote

 

Didn't find it Didn't find it
06/08/2016

dadgum 3rd time still no good

 

 
Quote

 

Didn't find it Didn't find it
04/22/2017

Dnf

 

A year apart. Before the 2 DNFs there were find logs.

The cache owner doesn't respond to NM logs, doesn't archive their caches. Let's reviewers do it. Doesn't appear to go back to any of their hides to check on them.

My guess, reviewers have been given the go ahead to deal with owners who have a history of abandoning their caches.

Personally I'm really glad they are doing more to clean up the Ontario abandoned caches. Most COs in Ontario plant caches and never go back. The barely-responsible owners never go back, but archive their caches once someone posts an NA. But most seem to think archival is the responsibility of reviewers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Another example: GC3HB8R

Again, this owner doesn't archive their own caches. Lets reviewers do it.

Rated D2.

Found until March 2013.

Two DNFs in a row in 2014, one in May, one in June.

Then nothing. No more logs since the 2 DNFS in 2014.

Also..."10/24/2012 The log was absolutely drenched". No response from the cache owner. The photo gallery shows a film canister in the woods. <Sigh>

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A year apart. Before the 2 DNFs there were find logs.

 

The cache owner doesn't respond to NM logs, doesn't archive their caches. Let's reviewers do it. Doesn't appear to go back to any of their hides to check on them.

My guess, reviewers have been given the go ahead to deal with owners who have a history of abandoning their caches.

Personally I'm really glad they are doing more to clean up the Ontario abandoned caches. Most COs in Ontario plant caches and never go back. The barely-responsible owners never go back, but archive their caches once someone posts an NA. But most seem to think archival is the responsibility of reviewers.

I remember previously suggesting a cachER health score which could be used to weight the CHS of individual CacheS.

Wonder if such a thing exists?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A year apart. Before the 2 DNFs there were find logs.

The cache owner doesn't respond to NM logs, doesn't archive their caches. Let's reviewers do it. Doesn't appear to go back to any of their hides to check on them.

My guess, reviewers have been given the go ahead to deal with owners who have a history of abandoning their caches.

Yet there are instances of these same cache context, but with "good cache owners", which is why it seems odd; at least, that I've only seen reports in the Ontario area.  My initial impression was that whether it was the reviewers' idea or GS, they are doing cursory copy/paste reviewer postings on such caches without (it seems) as much recent-log review as happened with reviewer disables. That made me wonder if they were just going through the list of low-CHS caches and posting the generic NM logs without a deeper review.  Doesn't seem like something our reviewers would (willingly) do knowing what kind of drama would erupt from it especially from prominent cachers and owners in the area... *shrug*

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yet there are instances of these same cache context, but with "good cache owners", which is why it seems odd; at least, that I've only seen reports in the Ontario area.  My initial impression was that whether it was the reviewers' idea or GS, they are doing cursory copy/paste reviewer postings on such caches without (it seems) as much recent-log review as happened with reviewer disables. That made me wonder if they were just going through the list of low-CHS caches and posting the generic NM logs without a deeper review.  Doesn't seem like something our reviewers would (willingly) do knowing what kind of drama would erupt from it especially from prominent cachers and owners in the area... *shrug*

I'll keep looking through my googled list, for good cache owner examples.  I did a preliminary search and didn't find any. But I checked only 3 and they were all absentee owners (a couple still active owners but they have a history of abandoning caches). Unless you'd like to share a GC code, but I understand if you'd rather not.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I'm just not seeing any cache owner of the caches NM'd by a reviewer after 2 DNFs, that fit the description of "good cache owner".

Only 7 caches come up in my google search with the canned message regarding snow. Are there more?

I see some COs that haven't logged in in months. All who have ignore cache issues. All with cache issues on the caches in question and on other hides they own.  I see 2 active event-going popular owners who got the reviewer NM after a couple of ignored DNFs. But they also ignored previous issues that were stated in the found logs. They also have many red wrenches in their lists of caches owned. They also have lots of cache hides, many PT caches. They allow others to throwdown a cache with their permission. I have found some of their caches and can vouch for the neglected condition of many of them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I am also from Ontario saw this message hit a bunch of caches on the weekend and was just waiting to see a reaction on the forums.  From what I can tell, the criteria isn't directly linked to CHS, but is exactly what the message says as the criteria: "More than six months have passed since it was last found and there are at least two DNF logs that have been posted".  At first I thought this was a criteria that would produce a lot of false positives, but from what I have seen so far, the caches that have been hit are ones that I would think need cleaning up, although I'm keeping an eye out for exceptions.  Interestingly, it does seem that the criteria requires that the 2 most recent logs be specifically DNFs, so that even if there was a couple DNFs and then a more recent note or a NM log, it hasn't been caught in this sweep.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, m0bean said:

I am also from Ontario saw this message hit a bunch of caches on the weekend and was just waiting to see a reaction on the forums.  From what I can tell, the criteria isn't directly linked to CHS, but is exactly what the message says as the criteria: "More than six months have passed since it was last found and there are at least two DNF logs that have been posted".  At first I thought this was a criteria that would produce a lot of false positives, but from what I have seen so far, the caches that have been hit are ones that I would think need cleaning up, although I'm keeping an eye out for exceptions.  Interestingly, it does seem that the criteria requires that the 2 most recent logs be specifically DNFs, so that even if there was a couple DNFs and then a more recent note or a NM log, it hasn't been caught in this sweep.

That sounds like a super-simple GSAK filter to set on a database loaded with all Ontario caches.

Fact:  Reviewers can use the GSAK "Cache Cop" macro, too!  :P

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I'm just not seeing any cache owner of the caches NM'd by a reviewer after 2 DNFs, that fit the description of "good cache owner".

...

Unless you'd like to share a GC code, but I understand if you'd rather not.

Yeah, rather not, because I don't want to focus on people's opinions of what a "good cache owner" is when that's an entirely arbitrary and mysterious label plopped on the results of what we see coming from the CHS algorithm.  Not interested in that discussion (and it's already been done).  So I'll just say that "in my opinion", I have indeed seen reviewer NM logs posted on clearly non-problem caches owned by what AFAIC many consider to be "good cache owners". And you'll just have to trust me ;)

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
1 hour ago, m0bean said:

From what I can tell, the criteria isn't directly linked to CHS, but is exactly what the message says as the criteria: "More than six months have passed since it was last found and there are at least two DNF logs that have been posted".  At first I thought this was a criteria that would produce a lot of false positives, but from what I have seen so far, the caches that have been hit are ones that I would think need cleaning up, although I'm keeping an eye out for exceptions.  Interestingly, it does seem that the criteria requires that the 2 most recent logs be specifically DNFs, so that even if there was a couple DNFs and then a more recent note or a NM log, it hasn't been caught in this sweep.

Interesting thoughts, with Keystone's comment. It may not have anything to do with the CHS, but rather perhaps a reviewer choice to do a custom filtered sweep of their region. If that's true, it's a pretty risky strategy... 6 months since a find with 2 DNFs is, I would think, hardly indicative of a "most likely" problematic cache.  Leading to problems, perhaps, and in that case could be worth a note; but a NM log, without a check on the recent logs for a better judgement call? I'm not sold...  6 months unfound may be par for the course in some areas and extremely rare in others (mainly urban).  I'd think the move, if not requiring physical checkups but a quick OM log is sufficient, is more to weed out inactive owners, while biting the bullet of annoying some owners.

I dunno. It's an interesting turn of events at least. And if the active cache owners are confident enough in their cache's conditions that they can just post "Yup" OM logs to clear it, and the rest of the hits are either needing and receiving of maintenance or ignored and eventually archived, then I'm still good with the strategy.

Link to comment

I think they are looking for more than a “Yup” OM log.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t have mentioned “an on site check up” in the NM log.  I agree that with some more remote or difficult puzzle caches, 6 months unfound may be par for the course, but are they likely to get two DNFs?  And while 2 DNFs from some inexperienced cachers might be normal for those easily accessible neighborhood caches, those ones are unlikely to go 6 months without somebody stopping by to grab a find.  I think the other key 3rd element here is the time of year.  I have seen caches successfully found that have met these criteria in April, but in October, after many months of caching-conducive weather, it seems less likely.  All that said, I am ultimately still a little surprised that the threshold was set where it was.      

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

What they're "looking for" will be determined by the ultimate result of the couch-OM logs. If reviewers don't followup to check on owners' responses, then they really were just doing a routine little duty to either nudge owners into activity, verify active owners, or with active owners (who don't merely couch-OM) have caches that actually need maintenance get their maintenance.  Of course the wording implies the on-site checkup, but if there's no followup on "Yup" OM logs, then they're not really looking for actual verified, personal checkup visits, even if the intent is to have caches not found in 6 months with 2 or more DNFs checked and verified as findable by the owners.

Presumably, if there are caches that end up actually needing maintenances since the NM log and subsequent "Yup" OM log, then reviewers may take the couch OM logging into consideration in judging how "good" of a cache owner they are in the future.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...