Demonising the DNF

[+mvhayes1982]

For completion's sake, the email, again:

Your geocache, {removed}, looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an "Owner Maintenance" log so the community knows it's available to find.

 

Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing.

Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

Nowhere is there a "threat" implied or otherwise of your cache being archived, at least by anyone but yourself.

So no, there is no reprimand.

"...looks like it might..."

"...may contain..."

"...could be..."

"...a few options..."

"...if...if...if..."

 

Nope, still don't see any reason to feel insulted with this notification email.

 

Can you highlight the portion that says it's totally okay to ignore the email? I am having trouble spotting that passage.

 

I ignore far more threatening emails than that on a daily basis (Go about a week past your due date with Sprint and see what happens). There is nothing in the email at all that threatens ANY action from Groundspeak, let alone any punitive action towards the cache and/or cache owner. I've read through this thread with fascination --- and to finally get my eyes on the email in question, well... It is quite the disappointment.

[+narcissa]

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

 

Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.

[+Mudfrog]

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

 

Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.

If an email came my way, i'd read it then look at all the facts i had at hand. I'd check the logs to make sure i didn't miss anything, note the difficulty of the cache, and think about how it was hidden. With the info i had, i'd make a decision as to whether any action was required at the time. If i had a good inkling the cache was fine, then ignoring the email would be the option i would use. If something else came up later, maybe a reviewer post to the cache page, then i would look into it further. Pretty much the way things work now...

[+Team Christiansen]

Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.

If you are trying to connect the dots, re-read thebruce0's comments. Although he didn't type dots in front of each sentence and then draw lines to each dot, he succinctly connected them all.

 

For completion's sake, the email, again:

Your geocache, {removed}, looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

 

Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an "Owner Maintenance" log so the community knows it's available to find.

 

Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing.

Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an "Owner Maintenance" log.

 

Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

 

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

Nowhere is there a "threat" implied or otherwise of your cache being archived, at least by anyone but yourself.

So no, there is no reprimand.

"...looks like it might..."

"...may contain..."

"...could be..."

"...a few options..."

"...if...if...if..."

 

Nope, still don't see any reason to feel insulted with this notification email.

 

Can you highlight the portion that says it's totally okay to ignore the email? I am having trouble spotting that passage.

Asking him to hightlight a specific non-existing passage that is made unnecessary by phrases such as "a few options" and a lack of threat or repremand, is simply arguing for argument sake. This is understandable when so much time and effort has been invested in a 12-page thread.

 

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

This is well said. I would almost think that thebruce0 is an attorney stating one of the greatest legal doctrines in western jurisprudence -- Everything which is not forbidden is allowed - nulla poena sine lege.

[+Team Christiansen]

One problem in this thread is the frequent use of the word "nagging" to describe the emails sent by HQ. It was introduced, at least in this thread, in post #15. Certainly "nag" invokes an unnecessary negative connotation to these emails. Any definition of nag that can be found in a dictionary would include some element of persistence or being continuous. My understanding of these emails is that they are a one-time shot with respect to any particular cache. If the CO fails to take action, the email is not repeated. If it is not repeated, where is the nag?

Edited July 13, 2017 by Team Christiansen

[+barefootjeff]

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

 

Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.

If an email came my way, i'd read it then look at all the facts i had at hand. I'd check the logs to make sure i didn't miss anything, note the difficulty of the cache, and think about how it was hidden. With the info i had, i'd make a decision as to whether any action was required at the time. If i had a good inkling the cache was fine, then ignoring the email would be the option i would use. If something else came up later, maybe a reviewer post to the cache page, then i would look into it further. Pretty much the way things work now...

I can only go by what I did when I got my email. Since I'd been following the forum discussions since the inception of the Cache Health Score in mid 2015, I posted to the most recent thread on the subject (link here) and also on the local Facebook groups seeking advice. It was a tricky one for me - had it been a more easily accessible cache I'd have just paid a visit, confirmed it was fine and logged an OM as the email said to do, but it was a T5 water-access-only cache and the email came in the middle of the Christmas/New Year holidays when the normally quiet waterway was teaming with jetskis and speedboats. At any rate it's a long paddle and I'd prefer to wait for light winds and favourable tides before going out there. I considered disabling it until after the holidays, as the email suggested as option 2, but the person who'd logged the DNF begged me not to as she wanted to have another try and, after swapping photos, we concluded she'd been looking in the wrong place (about 4 or 5 metres off, it turned out, and she didn't widen her search because of muggles) and that the cache was almost certainly fine. I also tried emailing the HQ Help Line for advice but that was unhelpful and it was only after I'd told them that the DNFer had gone back out a few days later and found the cache that they told me I could safely ignore the email.

 

Did I over-react? Probably, but at the time I didn't know whether ignoring the email would leave a black mark in the system against either the cache or me as a CO, and as it was such a blatant false positive (one DNF on a brand new D2/T5 multi) I was really looking for some way of reporting it as a bug in the system.

[+narcissa]

One can infer from the docile grammar in the email, well directly from the words themselves, that just because it's not mentioned does not mean it is disallowed.

Read "a few options" again.

 

Did someone at Groundspeak tell you that it's okay to ignore it? I am just trying to connect the dots here, since several forum users have indicated that ignoring it is an option.

If an email came my way, i'd read it then look at all the facts i had at hand. I'd check the logs to make sure i didn't miss anything, note the difficulty of the cache, and think about how it was hidden. With the info i had, i'd make a decision as to whether any action was required at the time. If i had a good inkling the cache was fine, then ignoring the email would be the option i would use. If something else came up later, maybe a reviewer post to the cache page, then i would look into it further. Pretty much the way things work now...

 

That's very nice, but I still can't find where a regular, non-forum reading geocacher could verify with TPTB that it's okay to just ignore the email.

 

I understand that approximately half of the forum mob thinks that the email is no big deal and that it can be ignored, but some geocachers are bothered by it and others will be bothered by it in the future. Frankly, I am not convinced that ignoring it doesn't have consequences even if it is the result of a false positive.

 

Now it's just dandy to go around denigrating others for finding the nag email kind of rude and confusing, but that likely won't stop some people from perceiving it that way some of the time.

 

Since I happen to find the email pretty bothersome (in theory, though my personal cache ownership is minimal), I think my best course of action is to avoid participating in the actions that trigger it, i.e. DNFs. I wouldn't want to receive it and I don't want to inflict it on others.

 

Since the forum assures me that my DNFs are stupid anyway, I am not really certain as to why the forum is now shouting at me for not logging them anymore.

[+redsox_mark]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

 

I'm not demonizing, but I care. I don't want to be the cause of a needless nag email. I know, as recently as 1 week ago, 2 DNFs (on the same date) can trigger an email. If I go out with a friend to attempt a cache, involving a tree climb (properly rated) and we decide it is too difficult for us and both log DNF, I don't want that CO to get a nag mail, and when I see the CO at an event I don't want to have to explain why I logged DNF when I could see the cache was there. So I won't log DNF for a case like this any more. Simple.

 

I don't see what is wrong with caring.

Edited July 13, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+Team Microdot]

That's very nice, but I still can't find where a regular, non-forum reading geocacher could verify with TPTB that it's okay to just ignore the email.

 

You don't need to ignore it.

 

Aknowledge it - post a log to the cache page and move on.

 

No drama.

[+Team Microdot]

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

The quoted versions that I've seen have offered three alternatives to the cache owner: visit the cache now, visit the cache within the timeframe allowed for temporarily disabled caches, or archive the cache.

 

A lot of concerns would be addressed if the "nag" emails included a "read it and leave it" option for cache owners who receive the email because of a false positive.

 

Are those three alternatives offered as absolute requirements or examples of potential responses options?

No, they're not absolute requirements, but the implication is that one of those options is what HQ would like you to do, or thinks you should do. This is reinforced by the related Help Centre page that threatens escalation to a reviewer if the cache health score doesn't improve.

 

The guidelines clearly state that cache maintenance is the CO's responsibility, and for those that take that responsibility seriously and conscientiously, the email does come across as a reprimand even if that's not the intent.

 

When people enter into agreements where each has differing expectations disputes often arise.

 

One way to reduce the risk of dispute is to clearly communicate those expectations from the outset.

 

I don't see that as threatening - I see it as sensible.

 

We should also remember that significant numbers of cachers either aren't aware of or don't keep up-to-date with the guidelines or the Help Centre pages, which we know change frequently.

 

Ergo it makes sense, to me at least, that Groundspeak also communicate via email when appropriate.

 

Or perhaps they should make ongoing study of the online materials and the attainment of a reasonable score in related examinations a condition of ongoing membership

[+thebruce0]

That's very nice, but I still can't find where a regular, non-forum reading geocacher could verify with TPTB that it's okay to just ignore the email.

Once you know...

 

I understand that approximately half of the forum mob thinks that the email is no big deal and that it can be ignored, but some geocachers are bothered by it and others will be bothered by it in the future. Frankly, I am not convinced that ignoring it doesn't have consequences even if it is the result of a false positive.

 

Now it's just dandy to go around denigrating others for finding the nag email kind of rude and confusing, but that likely won't stop some people from perceiving it that way some of the time.

Thus, why I'll continue to casually inform them, hopefully until the wording is 'loosened' a bit, though once again as repeatedly mentioned above, even if it never is, it's irrelevant - there is ZERO evidence that ignoring it is harmful, especially if it's a false positive. The one reported instance from months ago leading to reviewer action was debated ad nauseum in a different thread.

 

Since I happen to find the email pretty bothersome (in theory, though my personal cache ownership is minimal), I think my best course of action is to avoid participating in the actions that trigger it, i.e. DNFs. I wouldn't want to receive it and I don't want to inflict it on others.

How compassionate of you to take your ball home so no one else can play because someone might come along who doesn't like its colour.

DNFs serve a purpose. Once again, not logging them because you find a notification to be some personal insult or deathly annoyance is a vastly dramatic response to a negligible situation in the grand scheme, at best, and removes content that, again, serves useful purpose to many, many more people.

 

...Since the forum assures me that my DNFs are stupid anyway...

Stop saying that.

 

I don't get why people have demonized the "nag" emails, and thus by extension the DNF log. Who cares? Read it and leave it, or read it and tend to the potential problem, whatever the log type may be!

I'm not demonizing, but I care. I don't want to be the cause of a needless nag email. I know, as recently as 1 week ago, 2 DNFs (on the same date) can trigger an email. If I go out with a friend to attempt a cache, involving a tree climb (properly rated) and we decide it is too difficult for us and both log DNF, I don't want that CO to get a nag mail, and when I see the CO at an event I don't want to have to explain why I logged DNF when I could see the cache was there. So I won't log DNF for a case like this any more. Simple.

 

I don't see what is wrong with caring.

Caring is great. And it's an interesting situation. In that case though, the situation is refining what a DNF is to you. I personally wouldn't log a DNF in that case if I didn't make an attempt at the task, since I chose actively not to pursue a required task. I'd write a note (and I have before); especially if I were saying I would return with a better tool to make the attempt. But that's just my choice. I'd say your choice though isn't one of universal principle - never logging a DNF because screw-the-CHS. In other cases, you would still log a DNF, yes? I'm for the refinement - a conscious consideration - of the posting of DNFs and various logs. But I find it self-defeating and pompous to restrict oneself from posting DNFs entirely (thus withholding potentially paramount information at best and interesting or irrelevant at worst from COs and other cachers) just because of a potential email that can simply be deleted. Especially considering how many emails COs already receive from geocaching and from owning geocaches. If it's only a few, they need to get used to it as an aspect of ownership; if it's already a lot, they're either used to it, or it's insignificant, or they know how to use filters. I mean really. I simply cannot fathom how this is truly an unforgiveable annoyance simply at the reception of one.more.email.

And I say that knowing that to some it is; and my response is - for their own sake and peace of mind - don't worry about it! The more you know...

Edited July 13, 2017 by thebruce0

[+redsox_mark]

 

Caring is great. And it's an interesting situation. In that case though, the situation is refining what a DNF is to you. I personally wouldn't log a DNF in that case if I didn't make an attempt at the task, since I chose actively not to pursue a required task. I'd write a note (and I have before); especially if I were saying I would return with a better tool to make the attempt. But that's just my choice. I'd say your choice though isn't one of universal principle - never logging a DNF because screw-the-CHS. In other cases, you would still log a DNF, yes? I'm for the refinement - a conscious consideration - of the posting of DNFs and various logs. But I find it self-defeating and pompous to restrict oneself from posting DNFs entirely (thus withholding potentially paramount information at best and interesting or irrelevant at worst from COs and other cachers) just because of a potential email that can simply be deleted. Especially considering how many emails COs already receive from geocaching and from owning geocaches. If it's only a few, they need to get used to it as an aspect of ownership; if it's already a lot, they're either used to it, or it's insignificant, or they know how to use filters. I mean really. I simply cannot fathom how this is truly an unforgiveable annoyance simply at the reception of one.more.email.

And I say that knowing that to some it is; and my response is - for their own sake and peace of mind - don't worry about it! The more you know...

 

Yes, all I'm suggesting is " refinement - a conscious consideration - of the posting of DNFs and various logs."

 

With this tree example - previously I would log DNF as I set out to do it, and for a geocaching related reason, I failed. Write Note is perfectly valid too. Now, I have refined my view, as I don't want to needlessly impact the health score of this cache when there is no issue with it (that I am aware of). So I will write note instead.

 

In the case of aborted trip for non geocaching related reasons (weather, phone call from my wife), no refinement is needed as I never logged DNFs for those anyway.

 

What I still struggle with, but I'm getting there, is understanding those who won't consider refinement, especially those who feel they must log DNF if they pressed go and didn't find. I accept that if it is important to them for whatever reason to continue to do that, they have the right to do it that way. And that the impact on COs is minor, and I won't change anyone's view. So probably time for me to stop posting.

[+Mudfrog]

Some people are taking this way too seriously! The email is supposed to be helpful, not cause offense or angst. Similar to what you would do with an NM log, if you receive one, look into the situation and make a decision on what needs to be done. The email is much more benign than a NM log. I don't mean to sound unsympathetic but i'm amazed that this is so bothersome to some.

 

This is a social hobby for most so i understand the wish not to cause problems for other cachers. I just don't feel like this cache health stuff was implemented to punish, harass, or offend anyone.

[+niraD]

The email is much more benign than a NM log.

It has been a while, but I don't recall NM logs saying anything about archiving my babies geocaches.

 

Yes, I know that my listings can eventually be archived if I neglect my geocaches' maintenance, but the NM logs don't come right out and say that. The "reminder" emails on the other hand, do suggest archiving my babies geocaches. I would expect people to react differently to the "reminder" emails than they do to NM logs.

[+justintim1999]

The email is much more benign than a NM log.

It has been a while, but I don't recall NM logs saying anything about archiving my babies geocaches.

 

Yes, I know that my listings can eventually be archived if I neglect my geocaches' maintenance, but the NM logs don't come right out and say that. The "reminder" emails on the other hand, do suggest archiving my babies geocaches. I would expect people to react differently to the "reminder" emails than they do to NM logs.

 

Is the reminder e-mail your referencing the same as the one in post 554?

[+niraD]

The email is much more benign than a NM log.

It has been a while, but I don't recall NM logs saying anything about archiving my babies geocaches.

 

Yes, I know that my listings can eventually be archived if I neglect my geocaches' maintenance, but the NM logs don't come right out and say that. The "reminder" emails on the other hand, do suggest archiving my babies geocaches. I would expect people to react differently to the "reminder" emails than they do to NM logs.

Is the reminder e-mail your referencing the same as the one in post 554?

The one that includes this reference to archiving the cache?

 

"Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages."

 

Yes.

[+thebruce0]

The email is much more benign than a NM log.

It has been a while, but I don't recall NM logs saying anything about archiving my babies geocaches.

 

Yes, I know that my listings can eventually be archived if I neglect my geocaches' maintenance, but the NM logs don't come right out and say that. The "reminder" emails on the other hand, do suggest archiving my babies geocaches. I would expect people to react differently to the "reminder" emails than they do to NM logs.

Is the reminder e-mail your referencing the same as the one in post 554?

The one that includes this reference to archiving the cache?

 

"Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages."

 

Yes.

 

... and... the problem is?

 

"Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired..."

 

I'm still baffled how this is somehow the cause of angst as if archival is some awful required option because you received the email. Baffled.

Edited July 13, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 1:29 PM, niraD said:

The one that includes this reference to archiving the cache?

 

"Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages."

 

Yes.

Letting me know if I decide (I decide)  it's time for my geocache to be permanently retired I can archive it is a problem how?    

I can't speak to what nags you but it seems to me that those who are up in arms about this are more upset that GS had the nerve to send THEM  the e-mail rather than anything contained in it.        

As far as this e-mail being offensive, I think that's rubbish.  There's nothing offensive about it.     I guess GS hoped that experienced cachers would already understand the options listed in the e-mail and realize that it's purpose is to help inform inexperienced cache owners on the various maintenance options available to them.   

Looks like they guessed wrong.    

 

[+edscott]

Most of my caches are well off the beaten path and have been out for several years.  Most of the serious local cachers have found them so there is little traffic in the area and no large beaten down bare spot beside the containers.  Consequently I do see a larger number of DNFs than what I'd consider "average". I don't ignore DNFs, but I evaluate them and check the site based on the content of the post and experience level of the cacher.  

[+qtbluemoon]

On 7/12/2017 at 6:51 PM, narcissa said:

 

Can you highlight the portion that says it's totally okay to ignore the email? I am having trouble spotting that passage.

"Your geocache looks like it might need attention." Which implies that it might not need attention. Take a look at the cache page and see what you think. If it does need attention, these are the things you might do. Maintenance. Disable. Archive.

[+qtbluemoon]

On 7/13/2017 at 10:01 AM, niraD said:

It has been a while, but I don't recall NM logs saying anything about archiving my babies geocaches.

 

Yes, I know that my listings can eventually be archived if I neglect my geocaches' maintenance, but the NM logs don't come right out and say that. The "reminder" emails on the other hand, do suggest archiving my babies geocaches. I would expect people to react differently to the "reminder" emails than they do to NM logs.

It seems to me here that the letter is just giving it as one of your options, not taking it upon themselves to do so.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Letting me know if I decide (I decide)  it's time for my geocache to be permanently retired I can archive it is a problem how?

I wasn't saying that it's a problem to mention the option of archiving a cache. I was explaining that the reminder logs are not necessarily perceived as being more benign than NM logs.

[+dprovan]

56 minutes ago, qtbluemoon said:

"Your geocache looks like it might need attention." Which implies that it might not need attention.

No, I deny that's what it implies. It's always true that your cache might or might not need attention, so if that were the only message, there'd be no point to sending it. Because they sent the message, they must be saying that there's enough evidence that there's a problem that the burden of proof is now on you. The use of "might" is just a hedge, not an out. I think the implication is clearly that you do nothing at your cache's peril.

Take a look at the cache page and see what you think. If it does need attention, these are the things you might do. Maintenance. Disable. Archive.

This is a nice summary of the message. What it says is that the person getting the mail should maintain their cache, just as they said they would when they submitted it. The implicit statement is that they haven't been doing a good enough job up until now.

I understand that a lot of people think these messages are a good idea even though I don't, but if you're going to support them, you have to recognize that the whole point is to tell the CO he's doing something wrong. There's just no way around that.

[+qtbluemoon]

I don't think the messages are a good idea, either, and I don't support them. I just don't think what they're sending out is worthy of angst. Very tepid, if you ask me. I'm not sure why an automated message has to be sent at all really. If the whole purpose of this CHS is to be another tool for the reviewers (isn't it?), they why not just let them handle it? Unless I'm missing something.

[+thebruce0]

43 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No, I deny that's what it implies. It's always true that your cache might or might not need attention, so if that were the only message, there'd be no point to sending it. Because they sent the message, they must be saying that there's enough evidence that there's a problem that the burden of proof is now on you. The use of "might" is just a hedge, not an out. I think the implication is clearly that you do nothing at your cache's peril.

I think you're dramatically reading things into that sentence which are clearly not there.

"Needs attention" implies attention. Not merely existing, which as you imply every cache "always needs attention". If that's the case then saying "needs attention" is absolutely pointless because it's telling a CO nothing important. No, "needs attention" means "hey, it looks like you might need to look at the cache listing" - new attention, special attention. And might implies it's not a certainty. "might need attention" implies exactly what the grammar states. You're inferring that somehow that phrase means your cache is in peril.

 

How about....

Quote

This is a nice summary of the message. What it says is that the person getting the mail should might need to maintain their cache, just as they said they would when they submitted it. The implicit statement is that they haven't been doing a good enough job up until now there may be an issue with the listing that has gone overlooked or ignored and this is an attempt to ensure you are aware that the system thinks that an issue might exist.

I understand that a lot of people think these messages are a good idea even though I don't, but if you're going to support them, you have to recognize that the whole point is to tell inform the CO he's doing something wrong may have missed something for whatever reason which could be considered a problem with a cache or listing in need of maintenance. There's just no way around that.

 

35 minutes ago, qtbluemoon said:

I don't think the messages are a good idea, either, and I don't support them. I just don't think what they're sending out is worthy of angst. Very tepid, if you ask me. I'm not sure why an automated message has to be sent at all really. If the whole purpose of this CHS is to be another tool for the reviewers (isn't it?), they why not just let them handle it? Unless I'm missing something.

Nope I think you got it. Except that the tepid 'nudge' is docile and harmless but people who don't need it hate receiving it and can't see any benefit of it existing at all.

Edited July 18, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

35 minutes ago, qtbluemoon said:

I don't think the messages are a good idea, either, and I don't support them. I just don't think what they're sending out is worthy of angst. Very tepid, if you ask me. I'm not sure why an automated message has to be sent at all really. If the whole purpose of this CHS is to be another tool for the reviewers (isn't it?), they why not just let them handle it? Unless I'm missing something.

My only answer to that is there are way to many caches and not enough reviewers.   This simple e-mail reminder seems like a easy way to get some of those caches fixed up before they require reviewer attention.  

[+Mudfrog]

On 7/13/2017 at 1:27 AM, narcissa said:

 

That's very nice, but I still can't find where a regular, non-forum reading geocacher could verify with TPTB that it's okay to just ignore the email.

 

 

 

I have no idea whether it's a one time email with no follow up or something that is monitored closely by Groundspeak.

 

But say GS was monitoring the situation closely,,, what might happen if i did nothing? Would they send a follow email 30 days later? maybe give me a slap on the wrist? dispatch a cache cop to set me straight?  disable my cache? or heaven fordbid, archive my cache? 

 

I'll say with confidence, neither GS nor a reviewer is going the archive route without following up first..

[+thebruce0]

Plus, again, the email doesn't say the cache will be archived as a result of inaction, and the only one referred who might do an archival is the recipient of the email - you, the CO, as one option.

[+Team Microdot]

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Plus, again, the email doesn't say the cache will be archived as a result of inaction, and the only one referred who might do an archival is the recipient of the email - you, the CO, as one option.

 

It doesn't even hint at the cache being archived but the facts don't lend themselves to drama and stories of bogeymen and CO's being punished 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, qtbluemoon said:

I don't think the messages are a good idea, either, and I don't support them. I just don't think what they're sending out is worthy of angst. Very tepid, if you ask me. I'm not sure why an automated message has to be sent at all really. If the whole purpose of this CHS is to be another tool for the reviewers (isn't it?), they why not just let them handle it? Unless I'm missing something.

My thoughts exactly. In those places where reviewers are proactively going after problem caches, the health score is no doubt a useful tool for them. But what problem is the email trying to fix?

• Absent owners? They won't receive it anyway.
• Maintenance shirkers? They'll just ignore it like they ignore everything else.
• Conscientious COs will in most instances already be on top of any actual maintenance problems long before the email is sent, so for them if they get an email it's most likely a false positive. I don't recall anyone ever saying they were glad they got the email because it alerted them to a problem they were unaware of.

I'd have no qualms if it sent reminder emails about uncleared NMs - is it actually doing that? - but the DNF-only triggered ones are too much of a shot in the dark with, on the face of it, little likely benefit.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

My only answer to that is there are way to many caches and not enough reviewers.

This is why we should abandon the idea that reviewers are responsible for identifying problem caches and go back to the original idea that seekers are the ones that notify COs of problems and, when necessary, alert the reviewers when the problems appear insurmountable. The number of cachers scales with the number of caches.

[+narcissa]

7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

I have no idea whether it's a one time email with no follow up or something that is monitored closely by Groundspeak.

 

But say GS was monitoring the situation closely,,, what might happen if i did nothing? Would they send a follow email 30 days later? maybe give me a slap on the wrist? dispatch a cache cop to set me straight?  disable my cache? or heaven fordbid, archive my cache? 

 

I'll say with confidence, neither GS nor a reviewer is going the archive route without following up first..

It is nice that you are confident about that, but I am not and that's why I am changing my logging process.

[+thebruce0]

Baffled...

Was going to write more, but it's pointless.

[+mvhayes1982]

I emailed Groundspeak. I've attached their response that "caches will not be archived as a result of these emails."

 

I hope this helps all of us continue to enjoy this wonderful hobby in a way that is best for you. 

[+thebruce0]

And next someone will say that their cache was archived because a reviewer was prompted to look at the cache because the CHS was low, thus blame the CHS and/or email for the archival.

If that happens? um, no. It was archived because it had problems not addressed by the CO that a human reviewer felt warranted an archival, not because of the nudge email.

I'm glad Groundspeak clarified that wording, even though it really didn't need to be clarified.

[+narcissa]

The email doesn't address a major issue of concern that people keep bringing up, which is the issue of so-called false positives where the context of a DNF is being totally ignored by the new system. It just underscores this false notion that DNF = problem. Since what I have to say in a DNF is clearly unimportant, why bother logging them?

[+mvhayes1982]

46 minutes ago, narcissa said:

The email doesn't address a major issue of concern that people keep bringing up, which is the issue of so-called false positives where the context of a DNF is being totally ignored by the new system. It just underscores this false notion that DNF = problem. Since what I have to say in a DNF is clearly unimportant, why bother logging them?

What you have to say in a DNF is absolutely important to: 

You - If you track your DNFs and use them to keep a record of your searching

Me (and many other cachers)- If I come behind you searching for a cache and you've included relevant information in  your DNF log that will help me decide a) should I search for this cache b ) where should I start my search c) are there areas I need to take a closer look/possibly not spend as much time on. 

 

Just because the algorithm doesn't take into account the content of your DNF log, does not mean that said content is not important. It just means that the now-known-to-be-fairly-harmless CHS email doesn't take into account the content of your log. I know, for me personally, being able to relive my "failures" in geocaching and to share those trials with other members of our community are worth far too much to simply abandon logging my DNFs. 

[+CAVinoGal]

13 minutes ago, mvhayes1982 said:

What you have to say in a DNF is absolutely important to: 

You - If you track your DNFs and use them to keep a record of your searching

Me (and many other cachers)- If I come behind you searching for a cache and you've included relevant information in  your DNF log that will help me decide a) should I search for this cache b ) where should I start my search c) are there areas I need to take a closer look/possibly not spend as much time on. 

 

Just because the algorithm doesn't take into account the content of your DNF log, does not mean that said content is not important. It just means that the now-known-to-be-fairly-harmless CHS email doesn't take into account the content of your log. I know, for me personally, being able to relive my "failures" in geocaching and to share those trials with other members of our community are worth far too much to simply abandon logging my DNFs. 

Yes, Yes, and Yes!  Regardless if the "system" reads the log, real people (ie, other cachers) DO read those DNF logs.  As a cache owner, I pay attention to those and will go check on the cache, write a note or do maintnenance and post that - whether I get an email from GS or not.  

And as a cache FINDER, I do want a record of what I've found or DNF'd, and if the cache owner verifies it's there or has done maintenance, then I can go back and grab the smilie instead of the frown.  (Just an FYI, I log a DNF if I've searched to MY satisfaction and really did not find it.  If there was some other reason for not getting the smilie, like muggles, wasps, too tough terrain once I got there, etc, I'll post a note.  And if I'm with a group, generally one of us will agree to log the DNF and the others post notes, assuming real people are reading the logs.)

We all play the "game" differently, and in a way that makes sense to us.  In the end, it is just a hobby, and a game.  I can't get too invested in controversy over semantics and technical details.

Edited July 20, 2017 by CAVinoGal

[+narcissa]

4 hours ago, mvhayes1982 said:

What you have to say in a DNF is absolutely important to: 

You - If you track your DNFs and use them to keep a record of your searching

Me (and many other cachers)- If I come behind you searching for a cache and you've included relevant information in  your DNF log that will help me decide a) should I search for this cache b ) where should I start my search c) are there areas I need to take a closer look/possibly not spend as much time on. 

 

Just because the algorithm doesn't take into account the content of your DNF log, does not mean that said content is not important. It just means that the now-known-to-be-fairly-harmless CHS email doesn't take into account the content of your log. I know, for me personally, being able to relive my "failures" in geocaching and to share those trials with other members of our community are worth far too much to simply abandon logging my DNFs. 

 

The email isn't harmless if it causes undo alarm or distress in other geocachers. Most geocachers don't read the forums and the email is not worded in a manner that suggests it can or should be taken lightly, even when it is sent in error. Since the system now reduces my DNFs to DNF = bad, I just don't feel comfortable with an action that might trigger that email. I can track my own DNFs. The potentially useful information in them may, unfortunately, be a loss to some other geocachers (though many voices in this thread have indicated that it's wrong to post useful, yet non-dire DNFs anyway). For me, weighing these consequences, the thought of triggering these emails for other geocachers makes me too uncomfortable and I see nothing to indicate that Groundspeak cares about false positives.

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, narcissa said:

 

The email isn't harmless if it causes undo alarm or distress in other geocachers. Most geocachers don't read the forums and the email is not worded in a manner that suggests it can or should be taken lightly, even when it is sent in error. Since the system now reduces my DNFs to DNF = bad, I just don't feel comfortable with an action that might trigger that email. I can track my own DNFs. The potentially useful information in them may, unfortunately, be a loss to some other geocachers (though many voices in this thread have indicated that it's wrong to post useful, yet non-dire DNFs anyway). For me, weighing these consequences, the thought of triggering these emails for other geocachers makes me too uncomfortable and I see nothing to indicate that Groundspeak cares about false positives.

Undo(sic) alarm or distress?

I was about to say that if I were you I should feel very lucky indeed to have led such a stress free life that I should feel alarm on receipt of an email with the merest hint that I needed to do anything more stressful than continue to respire.

Then I realised that I'd have probably found that life incredibly dull.

[+justintim1999]

7 hours ago, narcissa said:

The email doesn't address a major issue of concern that people keep bringing up, which is the issue of so-called false positives where the context of a DNF is being totally ignored by the new system. It just underscores this false notion that DNF = problem. Since what I have to say in a DNF is clearly unimportant, why bother logging them?

So  your saying that dnfs have no bearing on the cache's condition and should be ignored completely?

 

DNF = problem is not entirely a false notion.   

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, narcissa said:

 

The email isn't harmless if it causes undo alarm or distress in other geocachers.

 

I'm almost, almost getting a sense of a social justice warrior mindset, setting out to make sure no one is ever, ever triggered about anything, rather than educating people how not to get triggered about something.

 

It's as simple as: "Hey, don't worry about that email if there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."

 

But let's assume no one tells them, and there's nothing wrong with the cache..  What responses might there be?

 

* Archival. If they archive their perfectly fine cache because an email gave it as an option and they didn't feel that any other options were any more relevant, they really don't know much about cache ownership and should likely hold off a while or do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.

 

* Cache maintenance. Even though it may not be needed (even if not known until it's done), at least it has been done, and whatever reason triggered the notification has been shown to be a false positive, and a note to that effect by the CO on the listing will help to avert any other concern by anyone else (including any curious reviewer).

 

* Angst. If they merely go bonkers (sorry, become alarmed or distressed) because they don't know what to do, since no followup response that's mentioned is relevant in their case, they probably need to step back from cache ownership, take a deep breath, and do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.

 

* Ask someone else, or a reviewer. That's a rational response. And then, what? "Hey, don't worry about that email of there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."

 

[+redsox_mark]

22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* Angst. If they merely go bonkers (sorry, become alarmed or distressed) because they don't know what to do, since no followup response that's mentioned is relevant in their case, they probably need to step back from cache ownership, take a deep breath, and do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.

 

The most common I've seen is "Grumble".   Similar to angst, but much less severe.    And I think understandable.     E.g a cacher saying to others at an event, or on social media, "Why am I getting this email?   It seems it is because of DNFs, but I just have 2 DNFs by cachers who said in their log they didn't actually look.   I am always quick to address any issues.    While I see loads of cachers who don't maintain their caches at all!  "

It's not the end of the world, but it doesn't leave the CO feeling less happy with geocaching.com than before they got the mail.

 

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

The most common I've seen is "Grumble".   Similar to angst, but much less severe.    And I think understandable.     E.g a cacher saying to others at an event, or on social media, "Why am I getting this email?   It seems it is because of DNFs, but I just have 2 DNFs by cachers who said in their log they didn't actually look.   I am always quick to address any issues.    While I see loads of cachers who don't maintain their caches at all!  "

It's not the end of the world, but it doesn't leave the CO feeling less happy with geocaching.com than before they got the mail.

 

 

Sure. But potential "undo alarm or distress" to the point of having someone never filing any DNFs ever again is much more extreme than a 'grumble' (by the non-DNF or the CO who may get emails).

 

I 'grumble' when I get a set of 15 spam emails. But I delete them.

I 'grumble' when I get an unexpected error in my coding, but I fix it and move along.

I 'grumble' when a turning car cuts me off at a cross walk, but maybe I'll give them a glare and keep on walking (without punching their hood), because whatever.

 

There's far too much legitimate angst about this notification system for its actual effect on cachers.  And 'too much' is 'more than a grumble'.

Edited July 20, 2017 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

52 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

I'm almost, almost getting a sense of a social justice warrior mindset, setting out to make sure no one is ever, ever triggered about anything, rather than educating people how not to get triggered about something.

 

It's as simple as: "Hey, don't worry about that email if there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."

 

But let's assume no one tells them, and there's nothing wrong with the cache..  What responses might there be?

 

* Archival. If they archive their perfectly fine cache because an email gave it as an option and they didn't feel that any other options were any more relevant, they really don't know much about cache ownership and should likely hold off a while or do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.

 

* Cache maintenance. Even though it may not be needed (even if not known until it's done), at least it has been done, and whatever reason triggered the notification has been shown to be a false positive, and a note to that effect by the CO on the listing will help to avert any other concern by anyone else (including any curious reviewer).

 

* Angst. If they merely go bonkers (sorry, become alarmed or distressed) because they don't know what to do, since no followup response that's mentioned is relevant in their case, they probably need to step back from cache ownership, take a deep breath, and do some research (and further reading about ownership) before accepting responsibility for another geocache.

 

* Ask someone else, or a reviewer. That's a rational response. And then, what? "Hey, don't worry about that email of there's nothing wrong with your cache." "Really? Ok."

 

 

This isn't relevant to me. I don't know when or if I have triggered the email and it isn't my place to counsel other geocachers to ignore missives from Groundspeak.

 

Social justice warrior? There is no need for this nasty, political name-calling in a thread about geocaching. I am quite certain the world won't stop turning just because my DNFs are going away. I am assured by several others in the forum that I had no business writing DNFs at all anyway because they are only to be used when a cache is missing.

[+redsox_mark]

11 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

There's far too much legitimate angst about this notification system for its actual effect on cachers.  And 'too much' is 'more than a grumble'.

Yes there is some angst against the notification system.

And some, like myself, who think it could be improved.    I'm really not convinced it is helpful to send these mails based on DNFs alone.   And it does that.    It is still sending them at least in some cases where there are just 2 DNFs, and no other logs suggesting an issue.     In terms of cache health, I see more caches which have reported maintenance issues which are not addressed than I do caches with a history of DNFs.    So I'm happy to have emails sent because of NMs which are ignored, but not based on DNF.

In the DNF case, around here someone will log a NM if they see "several" DNFs and/or they have strong reasons to suggest it is missing.    These humans can take into account those DNF logs which say "I didn't actually look", and can also take into account their own experience.    E.g. if the hint says "base of tree" and the only tree in sight has been cut down and there is no cache to be found, I might raise NM even if I was the first DNF.   

It may be a minority of cachers will stop logging DNFs completely.   But I believe the more cachers hear of other getting these emails because of DNFs (or get one themselves), the more reluctant they will be to raise DNFs.   Which won't help the game.

We can live with it, but I really believe the tool sending mails because of DNFs does more harm than good.

[+thebruce0]

27 minutes ago, narcissa said:

 

This isn't relevant to me. I don't know when or if I have triggered the email and it isn't my place to counsel other geocachers to ignore missives from Groundspeak.

 

Social justice warrior? There is no need for this nasty, political name-calling in a thread about geocaching. I am quite certain the world won't stop turning just because my DNFs are going away. I am assured by several others in the forum that I had no business writing DNFs at all anyway because they are only to be used when a cache is missing.

 

I said "almost". And it was in reference to taking action by "being offended" on the behest of someone else, in this case, no one who has specifically come out as actually being offended at getting a notification email because of DNFs to the point of wishing the DNFs hadn't been posted.

So just keep posting your DNFs as they are relevant to you, as you always have.

If you believe some person has told you that your DNFs are not wanted (rather, that YOU shouldn't post them) because they don't like why you post them, then why listen to them when the vast majority of everyone else finds value in relevant DNFs - whether for the CO or the cacher? Seriously, again, it's overkill to withhold every DNF you would ever want to post just because you think someone might get triggered by receiving an innocuous email they can (even if they don't know it yet) simply ignore if there is no actual problem.

 

 

27 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Yes there is some angst against the notification system.
And some, like myself, who think it could be improved.

 

Yes, as do I.

And one step further, I agree that the algorithm can always be improved. That's the nature of the algorithm. Its flexibility for adjustment as more experience rolls in.

 

 

I'm really not convinced it is helpful to send these mails based on DNFs alone.

They're not sent on DNFs alone (as far as we understand the algorithm, which has not been described to us in great detail except that it takes factors into consideration to determine whether or not a notification email of a potential problem may be warranted).

 

 

It is still sending them at least in some cases where there are just 2 DNFs, and no other logs suggesting an issue.

Irrelevant. The system cannot possibly know if 2 DNFs indicates a problem or not. And so the email does just that - indicates that there may be a problem.

Clearly it doesn't do that for every single cache worldwide with 2 consecutive DNFs, so there must be other factors at play in the algorithm. Amount of time between finds? Ratio of Finds to DNFs? Responsiveness of the CO to previous NM/NA logs? Who knows. The point is that the algorithm felt that, in the cases where it's sent an email, there was enough evidence to warrant a notification of a potential problem, even if it's a false positive.  If it is, then ignore it.  Or, take the extra step *gasp* of posting a note or OM confirming that everything's fine. If it actually is.

 

 

In terms of cache health, I see more caches which have reported maintenance issues which are not addressed than I do caches with a history of DNFs.

And so that has nothing to do with this notification system which was enacted to help with the period of time before potential problems ever get placed in front of a human face. A NM that's unaddressed IS a problem, and a reviewer will - should - be addressing it at some point if the CO doesn't. That's not what the notification system was built to address. It's out of its scope. It's a different problem, and irrelevant to the CHS outside of possibly affecting the score as it pertains to the CO's responsiveness to actual reported problems.  If a reviewer doesn't eventually take care of caches that are clearly not being maintained, that's a problem with the local reviewer (because clearly it's a problem with the cache's CO which is also not being addressed - not the notification email).

 

 

In the DNF case, around here someone will log a NM if they see "several" DNFs and/or they have strong reasons to suggest it is missing.

And they should keep on doing so! That is a good community ethic. If the community does it. And once the NM is posted, it's out of the CHS notification email's hands, because now it's reported as an actual problem which the CO will have to actively fix, or intentionally confirm as not a problem, in order to avert any consequential reviewer attention.  The score - while the reviewer can use it to judge whether action is necessary in cases of non-proactive community, is NOT an indicator that there IS a problem.

 

Another way to look at it is like the email being a response to activity as if the glass is half full (or, there might be a problem, but you're innocent until proven guilty - it does not itself require reviewer attention).

A NM log is like the glass if half empty (or, a problem is reported which might be incorrect, but you're guilty until proven innocent - in time it will directly require reviewer attention).

 

 

It may be a minority of cachers will stop logging DNFs completely.   But I believe the more cachers hear of other getting these emails because of DNFs (or get one themselves), the more reluctant they will be to raise DNFs.   Which won't help the game.

To which I say, as I've consistently said, an adjustment to the wording of the email would be wonderful to help assuage any inferred misconceptions; but whether or not that happens, this is such a minor point of education - just let people know just how actually innocent the email is!  If there's a problem, deal with it. If there isn't, then forget you ever got it, if you don't want to be bothered with posting a note confirming there's no problem (which is not even a requirement).

[+redsox_mark]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And so that has nothing to do with this notification system which was enacted to help with the period of time before potential problems ever get placed in front of a human face. A NM that's unaddressed IS a problem, and a reviewer will - should - be addressing it at some point if the CO doesn't. That's not what the notification system was built to address. It's out of its scope. It's a different problem, and irrelevant to the CHS outside of possibly affecting the score as it pertains to the CO's responsiveness to actual reported problems.  If a reviewer doesn't eventually take care of caches that are clearly not being maintained, that's a problem with the local reviewer (because clearly it's a problem with the cache's CO which is also not being addressed - not the notification email).

 

About the Health Score algorithm we have been told:

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

• Did Not Find (DNF)
• Needs Maintenance (NM)
• Needs Archived (NA)
• Caches that have not been found in a long time
• Difficulty and terrain rating

I don't agree that NM is "out of scope".    And I've also seen reviewers archive caches due to DNFs (with no NM).    I am suggesting as a first step it would be better if the tool only sent mail if there was an NM or NA.    It can consider DNFs in calculating the score, but only in conjunction with an NM    (or NA) log.

[+thebruce0]

Context.

"out of scope" is in reference to WHY the email is sent; intent, not cause. Previous NM can affect the score, yes, and they should, as with numerous other factors which I said. Perhaps if a NM is still outstanding, an email may still be sent. Who knows. But it's out of scope in that once the NM is posted, the cache has moved into a different phase: The CO MUST address the issue, or it WILL get reviewer attention.  Before the NM is posted is the period of time which the CHS was intended to address, where nothing else was implemented to help, and a period where GS felt there was sufficient negligence to warrant a system to address -- notifying the owner of a potential problem, before it's been officially reported by community, and before it's at a point when a reviewer will eventually have cause to address it.

 

I am suggesting as a first step it would be better if the tool only sent mail if there was an NM or NA

But that's redundant because the owner is already notified by NM and NA logs, and the cache is now flagged as having an outstanding issue to be dealt with by a reviewer. What the CO isn't notified of is potential problem caused by a mix of a number of minor circumstances (not just DNFs), which is not also flagged as having an outstanding issue to be dealt with by a reviewer.

 

And I've also seen reviewers archive caches due to DNFs (with no NM).

I'd love to see an example of a reviewer archival only and solely because of DNFs. That means, no questionable and/or irresponsible actions or communications on the CO's part, no previous problems unaddressed, and everything about the physical cache and the listing are in good order.

And even then, it was a human who archived the cache, because they judged that it warranted archival. And Groundspeak will (generally) stand by their reviewers' judgement unless it can be specifically demonstrated as unwarranted.

The CHS in that supposed case wasn't the cause of the archival, nor were the DNF logs.  A human reviewer was.

[+Team Microdot]

13 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

 I am suggesting as a first step it would be better if the tool only sent mail if there was an NM or NA.    It can consider DNFs in calculating the score, but only in conjunction with an NM    (or NA) log.

 

Wasn't part of the reason Groundspeak came up with this whole system the fact people weren't posting NM's and NA's?

 

Please let's not go back around in a circle at this point