Keyword: Mold

[+redsox_mark]

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

 

I'm not looking for sympathy for the CO, and I've not seen anyone asking for that. My only concern is for other cachers who no longer have that cache to find. I know I said I'd shut up, and I will soon. The more pro-active reviewers are looking for possible problems, the more caches which aren't that bad (and most cachers would be happy to find) will become archived. Yes an active CO can stop that, but it is a fact that a significant percentage of caches disabled with threat to archive end up getting archived. That should be balanced with the other side of the coin, which is the more-proactive reviewers are looking for problems, the smaller the percentage of caches existing which need maintenance will be.

 

Now if this was a one off by a single reviewer, then has been said, the discussion is moot. I think the more interesting discussion is do we want more reviewer searching for issues or not? Seems most do, I don't.

Edited May 11, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+WearyTraveler]

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

 

I'm not looking for sympathy for the CO, and I've not seen anyone asking for that. My only concern is for other cachers who no longer have that cache to find. I know I said I'd shut up, and I will soon. The more pro-active reviewers are looking for possible problems, the more caches which aren't that bad (and most cachers would be happy to find) will become archived. Yes an active CO can stop that, but it is a fact that a significant percentage of caches disabled with threat to archive end up getting archived. That should be balanced with the other side of the coin, which is the more-proactive reviewers are looking for problems, the smaller the percentage of caches existing which need maintenance will be.

 

Now if this was a one off by a single reviewer, then has been said, the discussion is moot. I think the more interesting discussion is do we want more reviewer searching for issues or not? Seems most do, I don't.

 

Mark - sounds like a great topic for a new thread! This one is getting long and laborious...

[+thebruce0]

The mere search for keywords isn't the problem. I see no problem with reviewers employing that ability (as has been described prior in this thread as a common practice). The problem is bad judgement from a reviewer in responding to matches. And as seems to be the case, there've been no examples yet of this happening, legitimately (ie condoned by GS).

 

Reviewers cannot be restricted from doing keyword searches. That's dumb. They can be discouraged from making bad judgement calls. But if their judgement call is good - practively finding a real problem and dealing with it, that's a good thing ultimately (other than some ruffled feathers by people who don't mind problematic caches remaining active until, and only until, someone in the community is brave enough to report it). I would say that latter context is really the discussion point. And that's all a matter of opinion...

[+dprovan]

Mark - sounds like a great topic for a new thread! This one is getting long and laborious...

Well, the thread may be getting long, but the OP seems to be calling for a discussion of precisely this topic, so I'm not sure what starting a new thread about the same issue would accomplish.

 

Reviewers cannot be restricted from doing keyword searches. That's dumb. They can be discouraged from making bad judgement calls.

Well, first, yes, I agree reviewers shouldn't be restricted. The question is whether these searches are good policy. And I think this is a perfect example to discuss precisely because I deny this was a bad judgement call. While I might hope this was just a personal mistake, what I see is a perfectly reasonable, accurate, and clearly explained implementation of the policy "caches described as 'moldy' should be disabled." I can't say to what degree this reviewer came up with this policy on his own, but I think such a policy would be consistent with the more general GS policy of having reviewers scout cache logs looking for problems.

[+thebruce0]

Well, thankfully, there's no policy that advocated this reviewer's action, so I don't see a point in discussing it as policy. I see an action a reviewer took individually, within their rights and responsibilities as a reviewer, and which was justified. It just happened to be that their initial attention was drawn to the cache because of the method they used to locate it. This was apparently a once off process, so any concern about it being explicitly "only" because of the keyword (despite there being other problems) isn't backed up by it happening elsewhere to another cache having no other problems to justify the action.

[+justintim1999]

 

Every cache owner that's had a cache involuntarily archived also make a decision. They decided not to monitor their caches for whatever reason. They also decided not to respond to the cache being temporarily disabled.

 

You can defend these actions all you want but I just can't sympathize.

 

I'm not looking for sympathy for the CO, and I've not seen anyone asking for that. My only concern is for other cachers who no longer have that cache to find. I know I said I'd shut up, and I will soon. The more pro-active reviewers are looking for possible problems, the more caches which aren't that bad (and most cachers would be happy to find) will become archived. Yes an active CO can stop that, but it is a fact that a significant percentage of caches disabled with threat to archive end up getting archived. That should be balanced with the other side of the coin, which is the more-proactive reviewers are looking for problems, the smaller the percentage of caches existing which need maintenance will be.

 

Now if this was a one off by a single reviewer, then has been said, the discussion is moot. I think the more interesting discussion is do we want more reviewer searching for issues or not? Seems most do, I don't.

 

If a cache owner won't respond to a reviewer disabling their cache what makes you think their going to respond to anything else? This idea that GS is going to arbitrarily start removing caches for the simplest of infractions is a fallacy. They won't and they can't, unless the cache owner lets them. If I thought that they were intentionally trying to do that I'd renounce my position within the Central Authority and become a double agent.

 

The fact that they are actively searching for problematic keywords, and the Health Score tells me that the current reporting system isn't being used like it should or isn't being used at all.

 

Are you a reviewer for GS?

[+hzoi]

Yes, a maintained cache can become moldy, at which time it is time for more maintenance.. which is exactly what happened in this case, and a reviewer did the whole community a favor by bringing attention to it.

The seeker brought attention to it. The reviewer did nothing but usurp the local community's standards in order to apply his own. The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over. The reviewer applied his own standard which said that if the mold wasn't cleaned up in a few weeks, the functional cache should be archived.

 

That's a bit of a leap. You assume people noticed and then failed to take action because they were OK with the cache being moldy, but the facts don't bear that out.

 

Per the cache page, there are three people watching the cache other than the deceased CO. There may have been more back when the cache was active, but there are now three. Whoever those three cachers are, yes, they failed to take action, but that's where the facts end and the conjecture begins. Unless those three cachers identify themselves and explain their motives, you're assuming facts not in evidence.

 

(And unless we're talking about one of those cartoon desert islands with one lone palm tree, three people does not a community make.)

 

I object to the change in policy

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in policy? Especially since at least one reviewer has already stated that there ain't one.

 

Let's review the facts. One reviewer tried a new technique to ID trouble caches, which led to (according to my search) ten caches being temp disabled. Seven of those caches were fixed within the time frame set by the reviewer and were re-enabled. The eighth had already been fixed and was immediately re-enabled by the CO. Two were archived after the CO failed to respond.

 

The cache that started this thread had been ownerless for a decade and so got archived because no one was on the receiving end to respond within the thirty days that has become the standard pretty much across the board for responding to a reviewer disabling a cache.

 

The above is not a "policy," it's a sequence of events.

[+L0ne.R]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something.

 

Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it.

When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something.

 

The community is largely unaware of these options.

 

When we make them aware, they don't like the option.

[+narcissa]

The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over.

 

The community has tacitly decided that they find NM/NA distasteful and won't use it. If the cache owner won't read and respond to the information in the Found log, then the reviewer should do something.

 

Very often someone comes in to the forums complaining that a cache is in bad shape and reviewers won't do anything, or that they should be allowed to adopt it.

When the NM/NA procedure is pointed out, they won't use it and instead complain that a reviewer should do something.

 

The community is largely unaware of these options.

 

When we make them aware, they don't like the option.

 

Some people do, some people do not. Many do not have these options readily available to them in the platform they use to log caches.

[+dprovan]

What evidence do you have that there has been any change in policy? Especially since at least one reviewer has already stated that there ain't one.

There have been numerous reports in the forums about reviewers proactively acting against caches, even before the scoring system and the warning e-mails that have been discussed in detail. In January, GS announced a campaign for cache quality and I haven't see anything except reviewer based actions being part of that campaign. There's a clear policy that reviewers are responsible for cache quality and should actively work to improve it. Even in my area, which has no problem with cache quality, the reviewer's started jumping in and disabling caches as soon as an NM's posted.

 

I can't even imagine what reviewer would deny this. All I can think of is a denial of the specific procedure of searching logs for keywords: I can imagine GS not telling anyone to do that, although a reviewer doing that is consistent with everything else going on.

 

Let's review the facts. One reviewer tried a new technique to ID trouble caches, which led to (according to my search) ten caches being temp disabled. Seven of those caches were fixed within the time frame set by the reviewer and were re-enabled. The eighth had already been fixed and was immediately re-enabled by the CO. Two were archived after the CO failed to respond.

Cute. "There's no policy...but it's an effective policy!"

[+dprovan]

Well, thankfully, there's no policy that advocated this reviewer's action, so I don't see a point in discussing it as policy. I see an action a reviewer took individually, within their rights and responsibilities as a reviewer, and which was justified.

It's a policy that says it's the reviewers responsibility and he's justified in doing it. If that's not a policy, what would it take to make it a policy?

[+Team Microdot]

What seems to be going on is an attempt to demonise a volunteer reviewer on the basis that he went against an imaginary decision by the geocaching community.

I find this comment offensive. I've made it quite clear I have nothing against the reviewer. I object to the change in policy, so please address that issue instead of pretending my comments are a personal attack.

 

I'm sorry.

 

When you wrote this:

 

The seeker brought attention to it. The reviewer did nothing but usurp the local community's standards in order to apply his own. The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over. The reviewer applied his own standard which said that if the mold wasn't cleaned up in a few weeks, the functional cache should be archived.

 

opining that said reviewer took a position of power illegally against a decision made by the local community, which was never made, I read it as a baseless accusation aimed squarely at that specific volunteer reviewer.

 

It wasn't that?

 

Oh - okay.

 

It still looks very much like that though.

[+redsox_mark]

 

If a cache owner won't respond to a reviewer disabling their cache what makes you think their going to respond to anything else? This idea that GS is going to arbitrarily start removing caches for the simplest of infractions is a fallacy. They won't and they can't, unless the cache owner lets them. If I thought that they were intentionally trying to do that I'd renounce my position within the Central Authority and become a double agent.

 

The fact that they are actively searching for problematic keywords, and the Health Score tells me that the current reporting system isn't being used like it should or isn't being used at all.

 

Are you a reviewer for GS?

 

I'm not a reviewer, and I don't think any reviewer will do anything other than what they feel is the right thing. I don't think the sky is falling.

 

I just don't see the need for reviewers to search for words and make judgements based on them. I think, all things considered, it is best if they don't. That's all. We don't agree, and that's fine. I see the benefits, I just don't think it is best overall if keyword searches are done looking for issues.

[+justintim1999]

 

If a cache owner won't respond to a reviewer disabling their cache what makes you think their going to respond to anything else? This idea that GS is going to arbitrarily start removing caches for the simplest of infractions is a fallacy. They won't and they can't, unless the cache owner lets them. If I thought that they were intentionally trying to do that I'd renounce my position within the Central Authority and become a double agent.

 

The fact that they are actively searching for problematic keywords, and the Health Score tells me that the current reporting system isn't being used like it should or isn't being used at all.

 

Are you a reviewer for GS?

 

I'm not a reviewer, and I don't think any reviewer will do anything other than what they feel is the right thing. I don't think the sky is falling.

 

I just don't see the need for reviewers to search for words and make judgements based on them. I think, all things considered, it is best if they don't. That's all. We don't agree, and that's fine. I see the benefits, I just don't think it is best overall if keyword searches are done looking for issues.

 

How I understand it, reviewers are making keyword searches to identify caches with potential problems. A decision is made after the cache has been looked at more carefully by the reviewer.

 

According to Hzoi's previous post the reviewers search identified 10 caches that actually had issues that were not identified through the traditional method. Only two of the ten wound up archived. Before we pull the pin here I would love to know what sort of maintenance issues prompted this particular reviewer to disable these ten caches.

 

If nothing else the example proves my point. The only caches out of the 10 that were archived were by cache owners who didn't respond.

[+redsox_mark]

 

How I understand it, reviewers are making keyword searches to identify caches with potential problems. A decision is made after the cache has been looked at more carefully by the reviewer.

 

According to Hzoi's previous post the reviewers search identified 10 caches that actually had issues that were not identified through the traditional method. Only two of the ten wound up archived. Before we pull the pin here I would love to know what sort of maintenance issues prompted this particular reviewer to disable these ten caches.

 

If nothing else the example proves my point. The only caches out of the 10 that were archived were by cache owners who didn't respond.

 

I'm sure that is true. Your point is proven.

 

That isn't my point. My point is I believe that the game is better if reviewers don't search for keywords, and instead wait for cachers to log NM/NA logs.

[+Team Microdot]

My point is I believe that the game is better if reviewers don't search for keywords, and instead wait for cachers to log NM/NA logs.

 

My admittedly limited experience is that in many cases they'll be waiting a long time.

 

NM is a pretty rare thing.

 

NA is even rarer.

[+redsox_mark]

My point is I believe that the game is better if reviewers don't search for keywords, and instead wait for cachers to log NM/NA logs.

 

My admittedly limited experience is that in many cases they'll be waiting a long time.

 

NM is a pretty rare thing.

 

NA is even rarer.

 

What is your view? You previously said this was a storm in a teacup; that only this one reviewer searched for keywords once. So the discussion is moot.

 

Which means in general reviewers are "cleaning up" caches based on NM/NA logs (as well as DNFs). And in your experience this means it takes a long time.

 

Are you saying this is too slow and reviewers should be doing keyword searches? To me that is what this thread is about.

[+Team Microdot]

My point is I believe that the game is better if reviewers don't search for keywords, and instead wait for cachers to log NM/NA logs.

 

My admittedly limited experience is that in many cases they'll be waiting a long time.

 

NM is a pretty rare thing.

 

NA is even rarer.

 

What is your view? You previously said this was a storm in a teacup; that only this one reviewer searched for keywords once. So the discussion is moot.

 

Which means in general reviewers are "cleaning up" caches based on NM/NA logs (as well as DNFs). And in your experience this means it takes a long time.

 

Are you saying this is too slow and reviewers should be doing keyword searches? To me that is what this thread is about.

 

The storm in a teacup I'm referring to is this thread based on a single cache.

 

I don't really have a view one way or the other as to whether reviewers should be doing more keyword searches - but if they choose to do so because they think it might help then they should be allowed to explore that possibility without fear of pitchforks and flaming torches because one abandoned cache was archived. As you said earlier - the sky has not fallen.

[+thebruce0]

I don't really have a view one way or the other as to whether reviewers should be doing more keyword searches - but if they choose to do so because they think it might help then they should be allowed to explore that possibility without fear of pitchforks and flaming torches because one abandoned cache was archived. As you said earlier - the sky has not fallen.

 

Exactly.

As I said earlier, reviewers can't be denied from using keyword searches to look at caches of their own volition. They can be encouraged to make good, better, reasonable judgements. They could be denied from taking any form of maintenance action on a cache without having a non-reviewer NM/NA posted to it first - and that's just as ridiculous a limitation. Reviewers have to have that flexibility. So we're left with the rare (dare I say completely theoretical) occurrence that a reviewer takes an action deemed unreasonable or outside their privileges that's not prompted by a NM/NA, and it has to go to some form of higher court to determine if their motivation was reasonable or not since that's not something that can be demonstrated by hard facts, which of course is also just as ridiculous.

 

No policy has changed, except that GS in 2017 is focusing on encouraging more quality control. How that plays out? Who knows. If it's all reasonable, then that is a good thing.

 

No one wants reviewers searching for keywords and arbitrarily proactively disabling any cache they please just because it tickles their fancy.

If they take action based on a reasonable judgement call (w/ or w/o NM/A), then that's not inherently a bad thing. And if the action happens to identify an inactive owner, then it's identified an owner who has shirked their agreement and at worst the cache will eventually be archived (even if there really is nothing wrong with said cache which is beloved, only that the listing is maintained by an inactive owner and the reviewer's initial judgement was errant or unreasonable*), making room either for a new one in a nearby area or someone else to recreate the same cache, especially if the experience (not the listing "number/stat" ooo) is what's really important.

 

* and in this case if a defense to reverse the unreasonable reviewer's decision isn't sufficient for HQ, then they've deemed it indeed a reasonable action, and the statement following becomes relevant again, regarding replacement of the good cache with a new listing by an active owner.

[+redsox_mark]

 

If they take action based on a reasonable judgement call (w/ or w/o NM/A), then that's not inherently a bad thing. And if the action happens to identify an inactive owner, then it's identified an owner who has shirked their agreement and at worst the cache will eventually be archived (even if there really is nothing wrong with said cache which is beloved, only that the listing is maintained by an inactive owner and the reviewer's initial judgement was errant or unreasonable*), making room either for a new one in a nearby area or someone else to recreate the same cache, especially if the experience (not the listing "number/stat" ooo) is what's really important.

 

 

I understand your view, but I don't agree. While I would not say that the reviewer doing this is doing a "bad thing", I feel that a system where a geocacher needs to explicitly indicate an issue needs attention (NM/NA) is better than reviewers looking at text and trying to judge based on that alone.

 

If I say the log is "quite wet", what do I mean? That can mean "a little bit wet", or "very wet". (The use of that word quite varies per country). If I flag it as NM, it is clear I think it is serious enough.

 

I just think that way is better. So I hope that keyword searches do not become the norm.

 

Not wanting to stray off topic, but with the new NM /NA system, I expect we will see a lot more NM/NAs.

[+Team Microdot]

While I would not say that the reviewer doing this is doing a "bad thing", I feel that a system where a geocacher needs to explicitly indicate an issue needs attention (NM/NA) is better than reviewers looking at text and trying to judge based on that alone.

 

And you're absolutely right

 

If I say the log is "quite wet", what do I mean? That can mean "a little bit wet", or "very wet". (The use of that word quite varies per country). If I flag it as NM, it is clear I think it is serious enough.

 

And if that were happening on more of the occasions where it's needed we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

I just think that way is better. So I hope that keyword searches do not become the norm.

 

So how do we change things so that it doesn't need to be the norm?

 

Not wanting to stray off topic, but with the new NM /NA system, I expect we will see a lot more NM/NAs.

 

Good

[+redsox_mark]

 

Good

 

I agree with all your points.

[+coachstahly]

I find it interesting to note that Groundspeak has taken actions that appear to place reviewers squarely on the front line as quality control engineers for caches in their area. I'm hoping that this keyword search is an outlier but if it's not (and it's encouraged by TPTB), then reviewers will be on the lookout for additional caches with issues (on top of the ones with NM/NA logs), which is not a bad thing by and large. Reviewers are also the only ones privy to the cache health score of a cache (NOT that I want them publicly posted), which they can use to determine whether or not a cache should undergo the established song and dance routine of note, disable, and archive (if it goes that far). They've been given another "tool" to help identify caches that might need help.

 

I find a few things here that seem to be of concern, after thinking about it for a bit longer. The first is the new workload this focus on quality control does/will/might have on reviewers. Challenges were placed in moratorium due mostly to the fact that they caused more work for the reviewers than most anything else. Challenges were a small percentage of all cache submissions but an overwhelmingly large part of their workload, as I understood it. So TPTB are placing an even larger burden on their reviewers? Now they're asking reviewers to monitor caches for maintenance issues, which applies to EVERY cache out there. There are enough NMs posted to caches in my area that haven't received anything from the reviewer of my area. It's not that he's a bad reviewer. I personally find him to be a very good reviewer. It's my guess that he just doesn't have the time needed to be as thorough as he can be because A - he works, B - he has small children and a family life, and C - he volunteers his time. This new workload seems to be adding even more to their plate rather than less. There's only so much a single reviewer can do for the area that he or she is responsible for.

 

This leads me to my second point. It seems to me that Groundspeak is taking more action, on their own, regarding cache quality. While it's certainly a laudable action, it seems they're going about this in a somewhat backwards manner. I would think that Groundspeak would want to reach as many people as possible in order to improve the quality of the caches. Rather than putting more of the onus on a single reviewer of an area, why wouldn't they choose to focus more on the community (both COs and non-COs), which has a much larger stake in the activity as well as a much broader reach when it comes to the ability to improve cache quality? Why wouldn't they choose to highlight the reasons for a NM or NA log rather than diminish their importance by combining them into a single log which would require editing to state what the reason for the NM or NA is? Wouldn't they be able to reach a greater audience by emphasizing, to their membership, the importance of cache maintenance, the value of a NM/NA log for both the community and the reviewers, and the benefits that would arise from that type of outreach? I know this is already part and parcel of being part of this geocaching community, but if you're going to stress the importance of this with reviewers, why not stress the importance with the community as well. On top of putting the onus more on the community, it would also lessen the workload on the reviewers, who could better monitor the caches in their area with community posted NM or NA logs.

 

The common theme that seems to run through this thread (as well as others) is that most cachers would appreciate it if COs would provide better maintenance on their caches which need maintenance (or even consider archiving them to open up the area). Without delving into the frequency or immediacy of maintenance, I think the community, as a whole, would be in favor of better maintained caches. With many of the people in this thread stating that COs should be maintaining their caches better, it seems a bit counter-productive (and perhaps even a bit hypocritical) that Groundpeak is OK with reviewers taking a more active role in identifying/removing caches that should, by all accounts, be cleaned up by the CO (due to community posted NM/NA logs), especially if they're active, either as a finder or a hider. With Groundspeak stating that they want to improve the quality of the caches (with regard to maintenance), giving the reviewers more tools to help identify and clean up problematic caches, yet not including or educating the overwhelming majority of the community, it appears that Groundspeak has come to the determination that the community isn't worth including in this push for cache quality. If you're going to encourage reviewers to be more pro-active, why wouldn't you also attempt to engage the very people who have the direct ability to make things better?

 

Edited to add that I don't think Groundspeak wants reviewers to actively pursue each and every cache that's out there that might be in need of attention. In fact, I don't think they could. It's just that I see this as a more active role for reviewers than in the past.

Edited May 12, 2017 by coachstahly

[+dprovan]

I'm sorry.

OK, I accept your apology.

 

opining that said reviewer took a position of power illegally against a decision made by the local community, which was never made, I read it as a baseless accusation aimed squarely at that specific volunteer reviewer.

Nope. It was a factual statement about what the reviewer was doing as he followed a misguided policy with the best of intentions.

 

By the way, I never heard what you'd expect to see if the local community had made a decision. Since nothing would happen if the community made a decision that nothing's wrong, I think it's not open to discussion that the community made the decision that nothing's wrong. Whether the community made the decision only because no individual in the community considered the question is immaterial.

[+cerberus1]

...it appears that Groundspeak has come to the determination that the community isn't worth including in this push for cache quality. If you're going to encourage reviewers to be more pro-active, why wouldn't you also attempt to engage the very people who have the direct ability to make things better?

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

We have seen articles on cache maintenance in newsletters, the "blog", Geocaching 101, the Help Center...

- And here we are, still discussing it...

[+WearyTraveler]

...it appears that Groundspeak has come to the determination that the community isn't worth including in this push for cache quality. If you're going to encourage reviewers to be more pro-active, why wouldn't you also attempt to engage the very people who have the direct ability to make things better?

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

We have seen articles on cache maintenance in newsletters, the "blog", Geocaching 101, the Help Center...

- And here we are, still discussing it...

 

One additional data point to add...

 

It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users...

 

I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods...

 

And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

[+dprovan]

The common theme that seems to run through this thread (as well as others) is that most cachers would appreciate it if COs would provide better maintenance on their caches which need maintenance (or even consider archiving them to open up the area). Without delving into the frequency or immediacy of maintenance, I think the community, as a whole, would be in favor of better maintained caches.

To me, this comment underscores the key problem. Naturally everyone wants as many of the best caches as possible, but saying we're all in favor of better maintained caches implies that the caches can, in fact, be better maintained than they are. That's not the case in my area, and I doubt it's the case in most areas. Over time, caches have problems, the problems are reported in logs, action is taken, and the caches are either fixed or go away. The problem, I claim, is that people see caches going through that life cycle and complain about "all the bad caches" that are in the middle of that process. GS gets the message that everything's going to heck in a hand basket and springs into action, doing whatever it can think of doing to "fix the problem". But since this is just the normal life cycle, there's not really a problem to fix. Instead, the result is that all of these actions do very little except accelerate the process -- mainly by skipping the NM stage, which is the precise stage where the CO plays the central role -- by sacrificing thoughtful consideration and due process. The complainers cheer, even though they just have fewer caches, not better caches, and GS feels vindicated and is encouraged to do more of the same.

 

Edited to add that I don't think Groundspeak wants reviewers to actively pursue each and every cache that's out there that might be in need of attention. In fact, I don't think they could. It's just that I see this as a more active role for reviewers than in the past.

No, sorry, I think you're wrong. Over the last year, GS has clearly changed its role from shepherd to middleman. They no longer foster cooperation between geocachers but, instead, get caches from COs and delivering them to customers. Thus, they've changed reviewers from gatekeepers to shopkeepers. I have no idea whether this was a conscious decision or just happenstance. Whichever, it's led them to adopt a "the customer is always right" stance that allows complaining to undermine community.

[+dprovan]

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

Speak for yourself. In my community, NMs and NAs are applied appropriately. Well, until recently, when the local reviewer has started to step in to short circuit the process.

[+kunarion]

...it appears that Groundspeak has come to the determination that the community isn't worth including in this push for cache quality. If you're going to encourage reviewers to be more pro-active, why wouldn't you also attempt to engage the very people who have the direct ability to make things better?

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

We have seen articles on cache maintenance in newsletters, the "blog", Geocaching 101, the Help Center...

- And here we are, still discussing it...

Most caches that I found that Need Maintenance had no NM yet. I usually just mention how the condition compares to previous reports. Local Cache Owners don't like to go fix the cache, since it's placed once and forgotten. "NM" is an inconvenience to the "helper" who is propping it up (The CO being long gone from the game). It's not in all that bad a condition, it could get worse, so the plan is that all wait for the worse condition. In which case, it could get even worse, you see.

 

I've only ever logged one "NA", and that cache was then archived.

 

Of the "NMs" I logged, half later were archived at some point afterward. Of my "DNFs", one-third got archived. Lately, my DNF seems start the archival process.

[+cerberus1]

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

Speak for yourself. In my community, NMs and NAs are applied appropriately. Well, until recently, when the local reviewer has started to step in to short circuit the process.

Sorry, but we've experienced the lack of NM/NA actions by cachers in a few States, not just my small community.

Sad to hear your perfect community has now been "targeted".

[+Team Microdot]

 

opining that said reviewer took a position of power illegally against a decision made by the local community, which was never made, I read it as a baseless accusation aimed squarely at that specific volunteer reviewer.

Nope. It was a factual statement about what the reviewer was doing as he followed a misguided policy with the best of intentions.

 

By the way, I never heard what you'd expect to see if the local community had made a decision. Since nothing would happen if the community made a decision that nothing's wrong, I think it's not open to discussion that the community made the decision that nothing's wrong. Whether the community made the decision only because no individual in the community considered the question is immaterial.

 

Let's look at what you wrote again - my bold for emphasis:

 

The seeker brought attention to it. The reviewer did nothing but usurp the local community's standards in order to apply his own. The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over. The reviewer applied his own standard which said that if the mold wasn't cleaned up in a few weeks, the functional cache should be archived.

 

You expressly described the actions of the reviewer applying his own standards not once but twice with no reference whatsoever to possibility that there might be any external policy applied in any way shape or form. No mention either of the reviewer having the best of intentions PLUS the use of the verb usurped, typically defined as take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force in describing his actions.

 

You tried to amplify the seriousness of this reviewer's actions by evoking the community having made some decision which opposed that reviewer's imposed standards. This so called decision though has no basis whatsoever in reality.

 

And you're still trying to claim that this set of individuals managed to make this imaginary decsion while having no knowledge of the situation and no input whatsoever.

 

If I were you I'd just put the shovel down

[+hzoi]

 

opining that said reviewer took a position of power illegally against a decision made by the local community, which was never made, I read it as a baseless accusation aimed squarely at that specific volunteer reviewer.

Nope. It was a factual statement about what the reviewer was doing as he followed a misguided policy with the best of intentions.

 

By the way, I never heard what you'd expect to see if the local community had made a decision. Since nothing would happen if the community made a decision that nothing's wrong, I think it's not open to discussion that the community made the decision that nothing's wrong. Whether the community made the decision only because no individual in the community considered the question is immaterial.

 

Let's look at what you wrote again - my bold for emphasis:

 

The seeker brought attention to it. The reviewer did nothing but usurp the local community's standards in order to apply his own. The local community had tacitly decided a little mold wasn't important enough to even file an NM over. The reviewer applied his own standard which said that if the mold wasn't cleaned up in a few weeks, the functional cache should be archived.

 

You expressly described the actions of the reviewer applying his own standards not once but twice with no reference whatsoever to possibility that there might be any external policy applied in any way shape or form. No mention either of the reviewer having the best of intentions PLUS the use of the verb usurped, typically defined as take (a position of power or importance) illegally or by force in describing his actions.

 

You tried to amplify the seriousness of this reviewer's actions by evoking the community having made some decision which opposed that reviewer's imposed standards. This so called decision though has no basis whatsoever in reality.

 

And you're still trying to claim that this set of individuals managed to make this imaginary decsion while having no knowledge of the situation and no input whatsoever.

 

If I were you I'd just put the shovel down

psst - don't forget that he's taking what one reviewer did with ten caches back in January and making it into "policy"

[+coachstahly]

...it appears that Groundspeak has come to the determination that the community isn't worth including in this push for cache quality. If you're going to encourage reviewers to be more pro-active, why wouldn't you also attempt to engage the very people who have the direct ability to make things better?

Maybe it's because that for years, few of those in "the community" have bothered to use the methods already given to them to make things better?

We have seen articles on cache maintenance in newsletters, the "blog", Geocaching 101, the Help Center...

- And here we are, still discussing it...

So why not trot out yet another project, program, or focus on maintenance in conjunction with the emphasis placed on reviewers as well?

 

Will it help? Who knows but at least they would be attempting to reach the larger community rather than the "nothing" we see right now and then just foisting this onto the reviewers. If they're truly serious about cleaning up caches, then focusing on reviewers limits the opportunities available rather than expands the opportunities, from a purely population based approach.

[+coachstahly]

 

No, sorry, I think you're wrong. Over the last year, GS has clearly changed its role from shepherd to middleman. They no longer foster cooperation between geocachers but, instead, get caches from COs and delivering them to customers. Thus, they've changed reviewers from gatekeepers to shopkeepers. I have no idea whether this was a conscious decision or just happenstance. Whichever, it's led them to adopt a "the customer is always right" stance that allows complaining to undermine community.

Perhaps in your area but I can say that's not the case with the reviewer in my area. He's busy enough as it is (young family and an active area for caches) and rarely has the time to keep up to date with caches that currently have a wrench in place. There's no way he's on the lookout for potential cache issues via the health score or keyword searches, at least as far as I can tell right now. That may change but I don't see it yet.

[+dprovan]

Perhaps in your area but I can say that's not the case with the reviewer in my area. He's busy enough as it is (young family and an active area for caches) and rarely has the time to keep up to date with caches that currently have a wrench in place. There's no way he's on the lookout for potential cache issues via the health score or keyword searches, at least as far as I can tell right now. That may change but I don't see it yet.

I'm not seeing it much in my area, either, just enough to be concerning since we don't need it. But I'm seeing reports in the forums, I'm seeing automated "Is your cache in trouble?" messages, backed by a health score that reviewers can use to find "problem" caches, and I'm seeing NM and NA messages being reduced to asides hidden in other logs when entered using the new logging page. On the other side, I'm seeing CO's being marginalized, and I saw challenge cache rules completely rewritten because the challenge caches being submitted weren't considered good enough.

 

I'm actually kinda surprised that people are pushing back on me about this since it seems so obvious. It's particularly puzzling because the other people pushing back are the ones leading the charge for improving quality based on things like forcing COs to react to any suggestion of a problem immediately and visit caches regularly even when no problems have been reported. Even if I'm wrong about there being a policy, the people complaining about me saying there is one are arguing for an even more severe policy than the one I'm imagining.

[+thebruce0]

I'm actually kinda surprised that people are pushing back on me about this since it seems so obvious.

You're being pushed back because you're taunting fisticuffs against an enemy that simply doesn't exist.

 

Good

I agree with all your points.

 

I agree with his points in reply to your comment.

I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is.

 

One additional data point to add...

 

It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users...

 

I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods...

 

And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

heh, I always thought it was mainly techies who loved getting into geocaching because of the mix of technology and 'game' type activity as a great reason to enjoy the outdoors

First hand, I know many, many people who are technical in nature like me who enjoy caching. But generally speaking I guess 'techie' is a pretty broad term. Just like "I.T."

[+L0ne.R]

I'm actually kinda surprised that people are pushing back on me about this since it seems so obvious.

You're being pushed back because you're taunting fisticuffs against an enemy that simply doesn't exist.

 

Good

I agree with all your points.

 

I agree with his points in reply to your comment.

I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is.

 

One additional data point to add...

 

It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users...

 

I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods...

 

And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

heh, I always thought it was mainly techies who loved getting into geocaching because of the mix of technology and 'game' type activity as a great reason to enjoy the outdoors

First hand, I know many, many people who are technical in nature like me who enjoy caching. But generally speaking I guess 'techie' is a pretty broad term. Just like "I.T."

 

When I started it was only computer techie guys and their families.

 

It's changed since the app. Not so many techie people anymore.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm actually kinda surprised that people are pushing back on me about this since it seems so obvious.

You're being pushed back because you're taunting fisticuffs against an enemy that simply doesn't exist.

 

Good

I agree with all your points.

 

I agree with his points in reply to your comment.

I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is.

 

One additional data point to add...

 

It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users...

 

I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods...

 

And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

heh, I always thought it was mainly techies who loved getting into geocaching because of the mix of technology and 'game' type activity as a great reason to enjoy the outdoors

First hand, I know many, many people who are technical in nature like me who enjoy caching. But generally speaking I guess 'techie' is a pretty broad term. Just like "I.T."

 

When I started it was only computer techie guys and their families.

 

It's changed since the app. Not so many techie people anymore.

 

I'm sure that's not true. There are likely a lot more techie people, but the percentage of non-techie people is likely much higher than when you started.

Keep in mind that geocaching began on Usenet, and although it was in a fairly technical newsgroup (sci.geo.satellite-nav) there was a fair amount of crossposting going on into non-technical groups. Some of the regulars in that group also posted in a group that I frequently read (rec.backcountry). By 2000, Usenet had grown a lot from a bunch of techies to hundreds of non-technical discussion groups. I was a Usenet site administrator in 1985, and even then it was more than a bunch of technical groups. By 2000, Aol, Compuserve, and Prodigy were already very well established and the World Wide Web was 10 years old.

[+WearyTraveler]

I'm actually kinda surprised that people are pushing back on me about this since it seems so obvious.

You're being pushed back because you're taunting fisticuffs against an enemy that simply doesn't exist.

 

Good

I agree with all your points.

 

I agree with his points in reply to your comment.

I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is.

 

One additional data point to add...

 

It was mentioned in another post that the GS developers were geeks and not cachers. If this were the case, I can see the issue the coach mentioned - they're forgetting to include the actual users...

 

I worked for several high tech companies and I can say from experience that most of the techies wouldn't have any interest in going outside and wandering the woods...

 

And before the flamers start, I was very technical in many different types of the It world, so I'm confident that I'm not speaking out of turn... the stereotypes aren't all that far off...

heh, I always thought it was mainly techies who loved getting into geocaching because of the mix of technology and 'game' type activity as a great reason to enjoy the outdoors

First hand, I know many, many people who are technical in nature like me who enjoy caching. But generally speaking I guess 'techie' is a pretty broad term. Just like "I.T."

 

When I started it was only computer techie guys and their families.

 

It's changed since the app. Not so many techie people anymore.

 

I'm sure that's not true. There are likely a lot more techie people, but the percentage of non-techie people is likely much higher than when you started.

Keep in mind that geocaching began on Usenet, and although it was in a fairly technical newsgroup (sci.geo.satellite-nav) there was a fair amount of crossposting going on into non-technical groups. Some of the regulars in that group also posted in a group that I frequently read (rec.backcountry). By 2000, Usenet had grown a lot from a bunch of techies to hundreds of non-technical discussion groups. I was a Usenet site administrator in 1985, and even then it was more than a bunch of technical groups. By 2000, Aol, Compuserve, and Prodigy were already very well established and the World Wide Web was 10 years old.

 

In my experience was that techies (network engineers, developers, HW installers etc...) were more interested in online and indoor gaming than outdoor gaming. I worked for AOL 98-08 and RAX 08-12. Spent a lot of time at Goog site in NoVA. Walking through the halls, you'd hear them playing the online games etc... And judging by the number of times I had to explain what caching was (and getting the response), I'm confident that I was the anomaly, at least in that environment.

 

Granted, not scientific proof, just my observation.

[+dprovan]

opining that said reviewer took a position of power illegally against a decision made by the local community, which was never made, I read it as a baseless accusation aimed squarely at that specific volunteer reviewer.

I don't deny you can interpret it that way if you try very hard. I'm insulted because you would even consider such a thing.

 

But I have to come down off my high horse. As reviewers are driven away from their traditional role as demonstrably impartial judges towards taking on the roles of police, DA, and jury, I'll have to face the fact that the integrity I've always take for granted will now be questioned even if the high standard of reviewers is maintained in the face of the increased work load.

[+redsox_mark]

I also don't think reviewers should just be disabling caches for things like 'wet log' per your example based on arbitrary searching/browsing. But that hasn't happened. If it does, we can address it. Until then, if a reviewer takes pro-actice action against a cache, let's see how "reasonable" the judgement call is.

 

 

Let me try to take this full circle, and comment on why this thread is so long.

 

We started some examples of a (single) reviewer, searching for a keyword. There were 10 cases in total, but 2 discussed on this thread. Cache 1 had mold and a deceased owner. It was soon archived. Cache 2 did not have mold, the script hit a false positive of that word. But the cache had issues. CO addressed some, seems it still has issues.

 

Then there have been 2 main strands of discussion. One focussed on these 2 caches, where the main point as I read it is, the caches had issues, so the reviewer did the right thing. Doesn't matter if they searched for "mold" or "fluffy bunnies".

 

The second, and I would say larger strand, is about the general process. Is this a good idea in general? And here is where we see posts suggesting more process to proactively speed up fixing or removing caches, with ideas like an annual mandatory CO check. So the general discussion, broadly, is about: "Do we need more control and enforcement of maintenance and/or ownership issues".

 

To which there has been some interesting debate. Which could be moot if this is just one reviewer.

 

I think the length of the thread is mainly causes by these 2 discussions going on in parallel. Person A tries to say they don't think keyword review is a good idea. Person B cites the specific caches and says "what's the problem". That and of course, for the general process, some want more control, some don't.

 

Though I can't recall a single post suggesting it would be a good idea for all reviewers to do regular keyword checks.

[+thebruce0]

In my experience was that techies (network engineers, developers, HW installers etc...) were more interested in online and indoor gaming than outdoor gaming. I worked for AOL 98-08 and RAX 08-12. Spent a lot of time at Goog site in NoVA. Walking through the halls, you'd hear them playing the online games etc... And judging by the number of times I had to explain what caching was (and getting the response), I'm confident that I was the anomaly, at least in that environment.

That was mid-high school for me Telnet MUDs, and after-school LAN parties in the library with Doom and Warcraft.

I got my exploration and discovery jollies from Bard's Tale (now running a fan-site and a backer of BT4 and a forum moderator).

I have an inkling there may even be a higher ratio of 'gamers' who enjoy geocaching to non-gamers, than 'techies' to non-techies (plus a very large crossover of techie/gamers)

 

Though I can't recall a single post suggesting it would be a good idea for all reviewers to do regular keyword checks.

Good idea? No, I think I'd agree with that, as in advocating they should do it "as policy". But I don't get the feeling either that anyone is firmly against the practice; that is, that reviewers should not ever be allowed to do keyword searches. Which is why it's more about the judgement they use, where the line is over which they should not step.

Edited May 15, 2017 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

You know, this entire debate could have been avoided if the reviewer note was more vague.

[Keystone]

You know, this entire debate could have been avoided if the reviewer note was more vague.

You win the thread. I've been meaning to post for a couple of weeks, saying that the reviewer's only "crime" was excessive transparency. Had he disabled the listing without stating the method used to spot it, we wouldn't have this thread.

 

I use the exact same note to disable all listings with maintenance issues (there's a special version I use for permission issues). Regardless of whether I'm looking at the cache listing because of a "Needs Archived" request, a low Health Score, a complaint email from another geocacher, or the results of running the "Cache Cop" macro in GSAK, every listing gets the same log. It looks like this:

 

This geocache came to my attention as being in need of an owner maintenance visit. The cache owner needs to check on this cache ASAP and either fix the problem or archive the listing, after picking up any geo-litter. See the maintenance section of the Geocache Listing Guidelines. In the meantime, I've temporarily disabled this listing.

 

Owner, if there is a good reason for a long delay in enabling this cache, do not contact me through email or the message center. Please post an update note log here on the cache page so that everyone will know what's going on. When the maintenance is completed, you can re-enable the listing by entering an "enable listing" log. Use an "Owner Maintenance" log to clear the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, if set.

 

I've added this cache to a bookmark list, and I will check back in three weeks or so to be sure that the maintenance has been done, or that an explanation has been provided. If the problem persists, I will need to archive this listing for lack of maintenance.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Community Volunteer Reviewer

[+thebruce0]

Bingo

[+L0ne.R]

Cache 2 did not have mold, the script hit a false positive of that word. But the cache had issues. CO addressed some, seems it still has issues.

 

To provide more detail on cache 2 (current state of the cache after OM):

 

Edited May 15, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+redsox_mark]

Cache 2 did not have mold, the script hit a false positive of that word. But the cache had issues. CO addressed some, seems it still has issues.

 

To provide more detail on cache 2 (current state of the cache after OM):

 

 

So what does that mean in the context of this thread? Regardless of what tools the reviewer uses, it doesn't make him/her psychic. There is no way for them to know that even after maintenance the cache will have issues.

[+dprovan]

You know, this entire debate could have been avoided if the reviewer note was more vague.

I'm not sure "avoided" is the right word, but I don't think it would have been possible. One of the reasons I bristled at the idea that I was scolding the reviewer is precisely because the reviewer did what he did in an excellent and responsible way, including being quite clear how he made the determination. Just what I've come to expect from reviewers. That's why I assumed from the start that this discussion was about whether the reviewer should consider a search like this to be part of his job, not about whether the reviewer was performing his job well.

[+dprovan]

But I don't get the feeling either that anyone is firmly against the practice; that is, that reviewers should not ever be allowed to do keyword searches.

I do not want reviewers as a matter of course to try to track down bad caches, whether it's through a search or through a "good cache" measure or even just reading cache logs one by one. That puts the reviewers into the position of police searching for criminals and DAs deciding the criminals should be prosecuted, sacrificing their reputation as impartial arbiters regardless of how impartial they actually are.

 

It's possible there are specific areas where there are problems that aren't being handled by seeker reporting, and I can imagine reviewers feeling a need to jump in to sort things out. But that's not the case here: someone looked and discovered that this "mold" search turned up 10 problem caches. That's not a plague that calls for the reviewer to step it and correct things.

 

Which is why it's more about the judgement they use, where the line is over which they should not step.

I really liked the original line where they limited their judgements to black and white: does this cache follow the rules? Has that seeker made the case that this cache needs to be taken off the books? When they change to deciding if there's enough evidence in the logs to support saying the cache fails to meet a vaguely defined standard of cache quality, they automatically bring in their own biases, and that's going to lead to arguments no matter how sincere and fair they are.

[+justintim1999]

But I don't get the feeling either that anyone is firmly against the practice; that is, that reviewers should not ever be allowed to do keyword searches.

I do not want reviewers as a matter of course to try to track down bad caches, whether it's through a search or through a "good cache" measure or even just reading cache logs one by one. That puts the reviewers into the position of police searching for criminals and DAs deciding the criminals should be prosecuted, sacrificing their reputation as impartial arbiters regardless of how impartial they actually are.

 

It's possible there are specific areas where there are problems that aren't being handled by seeker reporting, and I can imagine reviewers feeling a need to jump in to sort things out. But that's not the case here: someone looked and discovered that this "mold" search turned up 10 problem caches. That's not a plague that calls for the reviewer to step it and correct things.

 

Which is why it's more about the judgement they use, where the line is over which they should not step.

I really liked the original line where they limited their judgements to black and white: does this cache follow the rules? Has that seeker made the case that this cache needs to be taken off the books? When they change to deciding if there's enough evidence in the logs to support saying the cache fails to meet a vaguely defined standard of cache quality, they automatically bring in their own biases, and that's going to lead to arguments no matter how sincere and fair they are.

 

Not wanting them to police and not wanting them to be in that position is two different things.

 

Like it or not they're already in that position. What happens to the current system when sneakers aren't routinely reporting cache issues?

 

So is searching for bad caches bad? Or is searching ok but acting on the information bad?

 

In my mind the Mold search identified 10 caches that should have been flagged by other cachers and as a result 90% of those issues were properly resolved.