Demonising the DNF

[+NanCycle]

This latest batch of emails caught one of our local cachers.  The cache has 39 finds and 14 DNFs in 7 years. No NMs.  One of those DNFs was mine and I had to ask the CO for an extra hint before I finally found it.  It is a good hide, always in good condition, just really hard to see because it blends in so well.  This year it had 2 DNFs from very new cachers, then a find from someone with more experience, then another DNF from another noob.  If the experience level of the DNFers is not taken into consideration, it should be.  I did suggest to the CO that he raise the Difficulty level a notch.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

Same here (Southern England).

What one of our reviewers has told us is that the score is cumulative over time.   So for example.. let's say there were several DNFs on a cache.     Then there was a find.    Then, another DNF.   While we don't know the algorithm,  we know DNFs can reduce the score, finds can improve it.     We've seen several recent cases where a single DNF (following a find before that) triggered the email.   However, there were some other DNFs in the past, before the find(s).    In other words, a find doesn't cancel out a history of past DNFs.    

We don't know how much an OM impacts the score (does it restore it completely?), but yes our reviewer also advised that we do an OM whenever we check the cache, and this will help the health score.   Some owners were checking caches but only logging OM if they changed something.   If everything was fine they logged a note.   

I don't understand that. The only cache health issue a DNF is going to be indicating is a missing cache, right? After all, people don't log DNF if they find the cache but it has a soggy or full logbook, or if the container is cracked. No, DNFs can only imply a missing cache if they imply anything. But if someone subsequently finds a cache after a DNF, it can't be missing!

So can someone please explain why I need to go check on my cache and log an OM to reset its health score if it has a DNF log followed by a find.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

So can someone please explain why I need to go check on my cache and log an OM to reset its health score if it has a DNF log followed by a find.

I don't mean to defend this because I think it's dumb from the get-go. But many people here in the forums have supported the healthscore and the resulting e-mails because they provide a way to eliminate caches who's owners have left the game. If you buy that thinking, then it makes perfect sense to ignore certain finds because they are consistent with a throwdown being left on an abandoned cache. People intent on eliminating absentee caches always point out that no matter how ridiculous the implicit threat in these e-mails might be, it can always be undone by the owner stepping up and posting that OM. Those people believe that the burden of making COs post those OMs is worth it in order to catch those caches that have no owner to stand up for them.

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But many people here in the forums have supported the healthscore and the resulting e-mails because they provide a way to eliminate caches who's owners have left the game.

If that truly is the purpose of the cache health score, then a more direct approach would be to simply require that cache owners interact with the site in some way every year/quarter/month/fortnight. If a cache owner doesn't interact with the site in some way for a year/quarter/month/fortnight, then the site could send email with a link to confirm that the cache owner is still active. If the link isn't clicked within a week, then the owner's caches are automatically disabled, and the process of eventually archiving them has begun.

This would be a lot simpler than calculating a cache health score.

[+dprovan]

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Because a note used to suffice to indicate that it had been checked on as no maintenance, other than a visual verification, was performed.  With the advent of the CHS, it appears OMs are now going to be standard procedure rather than posting notes, even though a visual verification isn't maintenance (at least in my book).  I change out the log, clean up the cache, replace the container with a new one, change out swag, etc..., I view those as maintenance; a visual verification to someone asking (or not asking)- not so much. 

I don't mind if you log a note, and I'm as annoyed as you that you're being forced to log an OM instead even though I'd log it as an OM, anyway. But I disagree with your logic. Visual inspection to assess whether there's any need for further repairs is a part of maintenance. Nothing in my understanding of the term maintenance limits it to making physical repairs. Indeed, I would claim that the difference between the terms "maintenance" and "repair" is precisely that maintenance implies a first step of identifying whether anything's broken.

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

So can someone please explain why I need to go check on my cache and log an OM to reset its health score if it has a DNF log followed by a find.

I don't mean to defend this because I think it's dumb from the get-go. But many people here in the forums have supported the healthscore and the resulting e-mails because they provide a way to eliminate caches who's owners have left the game. If you buy that thinking, then it makes perfect sense to ignore certain finds because they are consistent with a throwdown being left on an abandoned cache. People intent on eliminating absentee caches always point out that no matter how ridiculous the implicit threat in these e-mails might be, it can always be undone by the owner stepping up and posting that OM. Those people believe that the burden of making COs post those OMs is worth it in order to catch those caches that have no owner to stand up for them.

Point taken, but I'd still contend that throwdowns (and false Found It logs for that matter) are a very tiny percentage of the total finds logged, many orders of magnitude smaller than the error bars on the health score. Far more common is someone logging a DNF because they were simply looking in the wrong place (or any of the other myriad of reasons people have for not finding a cache) then going back for a second attempt and finding it. To require an owner visit and OM log in that situation is just silly.

[+dprovan]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

If that truly is the purpose of the cache health score, then a more direct approach would be to simply require that cache owners interact with the site in some way every year/quarter/month/fortnight.

You're preaching to the choir. Well, except this choir thinks it's a dumb idea to begin with to worry about abandoned caches as a thing rather than focusing on whether the cache is in good working order.

[+dprovan]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Point taken, but I'd still contend that throwdowns (and false Found It logs for that matter) are a very tiny percentage of the total finds logged, many orders of magnitude smaller than the error bars on the health score. Far more common is someone logging a DNF because they were simply looking in the wrong place (or any of the other myriad of reasons people have for not finding a cache) then going back for a second attempt and finding it. To require an owner visit and OM log in that situation is just silly.

Yes, I agree. This is one reason I think automated actions based on the health score isn't a very good idea to begin with. Almost all logs, but especially DNFs, can mean far too many different things for it to make sense to come to any conclusion merely by counting them up.

[+redsox_mark]

I don't know if they have made some changes (and I haven't received a health email myself), but this week I've seen lots of local cachers who are confused by getting these emails.

One example - a 3.5/3.5 cache - has no NMs, and the last log (1 week ago) was a Found it.    A week after that found it, the CO received a health check mail.   No other logs between the Found it and the email.    No NMs or NAs ever.  Sure, in the past history of the cache there were some DNFs (it is a 3.5 difficulty), but it seems very strange to receive a health email when the most recent log is a find.    The CO gave this feedback to Groundspeak.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+Team Microdot]

On the other side of the coin I'm seeing caches on the map that have a string of DNF's, and inactive CO's, which remain there for months on end.

 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

On the other side of the coin I'm seeing caches on the map that have a string of DNF's, and inactive CO's, which remain there for months on end.

 

And on the third side of the coin, often when I see caches with strings of DNFs they're interspersed with found logs saying something like "Great camo! Took me ages to find!".

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And on the third side of the coin, often when I see caches with strings of DNFs they're interspersed with found logs saying something like "Great camo! Took me ages to find!".

And on the fourth side of the coin I've seen natural and man-made features destroyed by people searching for 'well camo'd' caches... some of which were long gone... some of which along with their owner.

Some people even claim finds on those absent caches.

[+justintim1999]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

If that truly is the purpose of the cache health score, then a more direct approach would be to simply require that cache owners interact with the site in some way every year/quarter/month/fortnight. If a cache owner doesn't interact with the site in some way for a year/quarter/month/fortnight, then the site could send email with a link to confirm that the cache owner is still active. If the link isn't clicked within a week, then the owner's caches are automatically disabled, and the process of eventually archiving them has begun.

This would be a lot simpler than calculating a cache health score.

I see this as kind of backwards.   The focus should be on the condition of the cache not the site activity of the owner.   A cache in bad shape is an indication of an issue with the owner.   An owner who doesn't regularly log into the site means nothing.   In fact,  an owner who dose regularly log into the site has nothing to do with the overall condition of their caches.  

I think the health score focuses on the condition of the cache which in turn brings to light the reasons for that condition.    I also think it allows GS to set the bar on what they perceive to be good cache maintenance.

[+L0ne.R]

5 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

I don't know if they have made some changes (and I haven't received a health email myself), but this week I've seen lots of local cachers who are confused by getting these emails.

One example - a 3.5/3.5 cache - has no NMs, and the last log (1 week ago) was a Found it.    A week after that found it, the CO received a health check mail.   No other logs.    No NMs or NAs.  Sure, in the past history of the cache there were some DNFs (it is a 3.5 difficulty), but it seems very strange to receive a health email when the most recent log is a find.    The CO gave this feedback to Groundspeak.

 

I have a difficulty 4 cache that has a smattering of DNFs. Even well-seasoned cachers have had trouble finding it despite the detailed hint. Haven't  got a health check email yet. But I do an OM check once or twice a year. And if there are 3 DNFs in a row, or even just one where the finder and I seem certain they looked in the right place, I'll go check. (It's a 30 minute car ride away, placed in 2004).

[+Mudfrog]

Just received one of the "your cache might need maintenance" emails a couple of days ago. Looked at the cache page and found that the last two logs were DNFs.

One read:

 

Quote

 

 Didn't find it

04/22/2017

The weeds were too overgrown for us, but it was an great place to explore

 

The other:

Quote

 Didn't find it

06/10/2017

Weeds over grown and thorns and lots of mosquitos...had to stop looking! Very cool and interesting site!

Neither indicated to me that there is a problem with the cache itself. It's hard for me to believe that the email was triggered by the 2 DNFs by themselves so i'm thinking that the long time since last found may be part of the algorithm. Still, this hasn't bothered me any as I'll do the check, file an OM, and go on with life...

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

Just received one of the "your cache might need maintenance" emails a couple of days ago. Looked at the cache page and found that the last two logs were DNFs.

One read:

 

The other:

Neither indicated to me that there is a problem with the cache itself. It's hard for me to believe that the email was triggered by the 2 DNFs by themselves so i'm thinking that the long time since last found may be part of the algorithm. Still, this hasn't bothered me any as I'll do the check, file an OM, and go on with life...

I think you may be right.   I'm also thinking that a cache, disabled by the owner, is given more time before action is taken.   

[+redsox_mark]

38 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I have a difficulty 4 cache that has a smattering of DNFs. Even well-seasoned cachers have had trouble finding it despite the detailed hint. Haven't  got a health check email yet. But I do an OM check once or twice a year. And if there are 3 DNFs in a row, or even just one where the finder and I seem certain they looked in the right place, I'll go check. (It's a 30 minute car ride away, placed in 2004).

Yes, I think the OM log is the key.     The cachers who are getting these mails were checking their caches, but only logging OM if they actually changed something.  

[+thebruce0]

47 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

A cache in bad shape is an indication of an issue with the owner.

On the long term, most likely. But on the short term, a person may find a 'bad condition' cache, but it only got to that point since the last find. So yeah, bad condition over a long/arbitrary period of time would point towards an issue with the owner.

 

8 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

Yes, I think the OM log is the key.     The cachers who are getting these mails were checking their caches, but only logging OM if they actually changed something.  

So that means one of two things: 1] the COs need to post OM more often. 2] the algorithm needs to consider that OM isn't the only way to identify responsible cache ownership.

Perhaps there's a stigma that an Owner Maintenance log implies that there are (were) problems with the cache. That a cache which is "clean" with no OM logs implies a cache that's "never had a problem".  Which is certainly not true, but as a first impression on looking at a cache log history with a lot of OM logs, I'd wager that most cachers think 'there's been more issues with the cache' before thinking 'the owner is highly responsible'.  If the CO doesn't consider that impression then posting OM logs, even if there was no issue, shouldn't be a concern.

[+justintim1999]

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

On the long term, most likely. But on the short term, a person may find a 'bad condition' cache, but it only got to that point since the last find. So yeah, bad condition over a long/arbitrary period of time would point towards an issue with the owner.

 

So that means one of two things: 1] the COs need to post OM more often. 2] the algorithm needs to consider that OM isn't the only way to identify responsible cache ownership.

Perhaps there's a stigma that an Owner Maintenance log implies that there are (were) problems with the cache. That a cache which is "clean" with no OM logs implies a cache that's "never had a problem".  Which is certainly not true, but as a first impression on looking at a cache log history with a lot of OM logs, I'd wager that most cachers think 'there's been more issues with the cache' before thinking 'the owner is highly responsible'.  If the CO doesn't consider that impression then posting OM logs, even if there was no issue, shouldn't be a concern.

I can't see how posting an OM means anything but "responsible owner".    Unless your posting them from the comfort of your living room chair.

You can fix up your cache every time there's a problem and never post  an OM and as far as I'm concerned your a responsible cache owner.   Problem is there's no easy way for GS to know that without the OM.

 

[+thebruce0]

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I can't see how posting an OM means anything but "responsible owner".

I specifically made the context of a cache finder looking at a cache log history. That "as a first impression on looking at a cache log history with a lot of OM logs, I'd wager that most cachers think 'there's been more issues with the cache' before thinking 'the owner is highly responsible'", and "perhaps there's a stigma".  If there isn't, great. I was positing a theory. Can you honestly say that the first thing you think when you look at the log summary on a cache page with a lot of OM logs (especially with few other log types) is "this is a responsible cache owner"? If so, great, I don't think most cachers do. Even though the OM log is of course an indication of an owner who is active in watching their listing (and implies a responsible owner), and that a lot of cache owner may take that impression into consideration.  Or perhaps recently they may think that posting too many OM logs would have the algorithm thinking there are more problems with the cache that have had to be dealt with. It shouldn't. An OM log doesn't mean there was a problem that no longer exists. But if the community gets that impression, it can certainly influence an owners decision whether to post one just as an innocuous 'checkup'.

 

16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

You can fix up your cache every time there's a problem and never post  an OM and as far as I'm concerned your a responsible cache owner.   Problem is there's no easy way for GS to know that without the OM.

Exactly, as I concluded above.  Someone who doesn't post OM isn't necessarily an "irresponsible cache owner" (though that seems to be the method GS is encouraging), nor is someone who does a responsible one... in the same way, OM logs don't necessarily mean the cache is in good condition, nor does a lack of them mean there are (or have been) no issues at all.  OM log isn't a guarantee for anything, but it's an indicator more often accurate than not, so encouraging its regular proper use can only be helpful, even if there's a minor impact on cache owners.  But ideally, the algorithm would take into considering the alternatives, to some degree.

Edited October 3, 2017 by thebruce0

[+justintim1999]

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I specifically made the context of a cache finder looking at a cache log history. That "as a first impression on looking at a cache log history with a lot of OM logs, I'd wager that most cachers think 'there's been more issues with the cache' before thinking 'the owner is highly responsible'", and "perhaps there's a stigma".  If there isn't, great. I was positing a theory. Can you honestly say that the first thing you think when you look at the log summary on a cache page with a lot of OM logs (especially with few other log types) is "this is a responsible cache owner"? If so, great, I don't think most cachers do. Even though the OM log is of course an indication of an owner who is active in watching their listing (and implies a responsible owner), and that a lot of cache owner may take that impression into consideration.  Or perhaps recently they may think that posting too many OM logs would have the algorithm thinking there are more problems with the cache that have had to be dealt with. It shouldn't. An OM log doesn't mean there was a problem that no longer exists. But if the community gets that impression, it can certainly influence an owners decision whether to post one just as an innocuous 'checkup'.

 

Exactly, as I concluded above.  Someone who doesn't post OM isn't necessarily an "irresponsible cache owner" (though that seems to be the method GS is encouraging), nor is someone who does a responsible one... in the same way, OM logs don't necessarily mean the cache is in good condition, nor does a lack of them mean there are (or have been) no issues at all.  OM log isn't a guarantee for anything, but it's an indicator more often accurate than not, so encouraging its regular proper use can only be helpful, even if there's a minor impact on cache owners.  But ideally, the algorithm would take into considering the alternatives, to some degree.

A cache finder should look at OM's as a good thing because that's what they are.    If that's not what's happening than we should work toward changing that perception.

There's exceptions to everything as people in this forum are quick to point out,  but for the most part OM's are a good indication that the cache is being maintained and should be in good shape when you find it.   It's also a cache owners best friend when it comes to the health score.

[+dprovan]

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

On the other side of the coin I'm seeing caches on the map that have a string of DNF's, and inactive CO's, which remain there for months on end.

 

Yes, those caches are there for months on end because people looked at the map and saw caches with a string of DNFs that revealed the cache was clearly missing, and they didn't do anything about it.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Neither indicated to me that there is a problem with the cache itself. It's hard for me to believe that the email was triggered by the 2 DNFs by themselves so i'm thinking that the long time since last found may be part of the algorithm. Still, this hasn't bothered me any as I'll do the check, file an OM, and go on with life...

When COs complain about the health score, reviewers defend it by assuring us that the health score is just one tool they find very useful for getting a quick idea of the cache's health which they use as only one datapoint among all the things they look at during their hands-on evaluation. But then we get these periodic flurries of automated messages that can't possibly have a human involved. Me, I'm against the health score for fundamental reasons, but even if I thought it could be a useful tool in the hands of a reviewer, at this point I'd still want it discarded just because there's obviously someone somewhere at GS that just doesn't understand the problem with all the false positives it finds and can't keep their hands off using it as a magic fix to the imaginary problem of "poor quality".

[+justintim1999]

4 minutes ago, dprovan said:

When COs complain about the health score, reviewers defend it by assuring us that the health score is just one tool they find very useful for getting a quick idea of the cache's health which they use as only one datapoint among all the things they look at during their hands-on evaluation. But then we get these periodic flurries of automated messages that can't possibly have a human involved. Me, I'm against the health score for fundamental reasons, but even if I thought it could be a useful tool in the hands of a reviewer, at this point I'd still want it discarded just because there's obviously someone somewhere at GS that just doesn't understand the problem with all the false positives it finds and can't keep their hands off using it as a magic fix to the imaginary problem of "poor quality".

What problem?  How many false positives are we talking about here?   I have yet to see a single e-mail from GS other than the one to renew my membership every year.  Doesn't this all come down to personal responsibility and communication?   If I'm receiving these e-mails and believe I shouldn't be than I contact my reviewer and work it out or I get my butt out there and take care of my cache.  

This isn't about every cache being pristine.   It's about holding up our part of the bargain.    Unfortunately, in today's world, a simple handshake isn't enough anymore.   

If everyone who decided they were done with the game would archive their cache, pick up the container and move on with their life,  we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

[+Team Microdot]

46 minutes ago, dprovan said:

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

On the other side of the coin I'm seeing caches on the map that have a string of DNF's, and inactive CO's, which remain there for months on end.

 

Yes, those caches are there for months on end because people looked at the map and saw caches with a string of DNFs that revealed the cache was clearly missing, and they didn't do anything about it.

Whichever way you try to spin this, do remember that the set of people who didn't do anything about it includes the one person actually responsible for the cache - as much as you seem to want pin the responsibility on someone else.

Also do remember that many people aren't comfortable with claiming that a cache must be missing based on the logs of others alone - they like to check out the facts for themselves.

Not that your point is particularly relevant to the context in which I made the remark in the first place.

[+L0ne.R]

24 minutes ago, dprovan said:

GS that just doesn't understand the problem with all the false positives it finds and can't keep their hands off using it as a magic fix to the imaginary problem of "poor quality".

Owners who regularly monitor, check and post OMs won't be getting an HC email message, other active owners who refuse to physically check their cache or use the OM, seem to more often get insulted by an HC email.  Maybe the automated email message isn't such a good idea.

But I hope they keep the HC as a reviewer tool. I've seen a couple of neglected caches, where finders will not post NMs/NAs (1 or 2 years of DNFs - with a few false "Finds" scattered throughout), get a much needed reviewer disable.

[+dprovan]

32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Whichever way you try to spin this, do remember that the set of people who didn't do anything about it includes the one person actually responsible for the cache - as much as you seem to want pin the responsibility on someone else.

That's true, but however you want to try and spin this, you could have done something about it but didn't. I hold you responsible for that even while recognizing you're not the one ultimately responsible for the cache. Instead of doing anything yourself, you support this process that annoys innocent responsible COs and, after a much longer delay, finally gets rid of caches no one's responsible for including some that have no problems.

39 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Also do remember that many people aren't comfortable with claiming that a cache must be missing based on the logs of others alone - they like to check out the facts for themselves.

Yes, I remember, but that's not really relevant here because you've obviously concluded these caches are missing or you wouldn't have brought them up as examples of caches that shouldn't be on the map. Why not take responsibility for your decision instead of demanding it be resolved imperfectly through an impersonal, automated process? If you can't do that without checking them yourself, then go check them yourself. It makes no sense to say you can't act on them without checking on them personally, and then say that problem can be resolve by using a process that's the exact opposite of checking on the cache physically: it doesn't even check the text in the logs.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

What problem?  How many false positives are we talking about here?  

Well, in case you missed it when I first posted it, here's one example:

Quote

The cache has 39 finds and 14 DNFs in 7 years. No NMs.  One of those DNFs was mine and I had to ask the CO for an extra hint before I finally found it.  It is a good hide, always in good condition, just really hard to see because it blends in so well.  This year it had 2 DNFs from very new cachers, then a find from someone with more experience, then another DNF from another noob.

 

[+cerberus1]

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 Far more common is someone logging a DNF because they were simply looking in the wrong place (or any of the other myriad of reasons people have for not finding a cache) then going back for a second attempt and finding it. To require an owner visit and OM log in that situation is just silly.

I agree.  Most times when some (usually new) person claims they didn't find one of ours because they didn't have the equipment , I'd find it ridiculous to have to place an OM on that, when all can see no maintenance or check was ever needed. 

[+justintim1999]

32 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Well, in case you missed it when I first posted it, here's one example:

 

I'm sure there are many examples out there,  but compared to the overall number of caches that don't seem to be effected it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem.    We've already been supplied with many examples of how this tool helps reviewers as well as a small sample of the caches that have rightfully archived because of it.     Your example is one that I'm sure slipped through the cracks but nothing that I'm sure couldn't be fixed.  

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

What problem?  How many false positives are we talking about here?

And I ask whether there's really a problem with cache quality. We can't really measure how many false positives we're talking about, but in my caching experience, the number of bad caches can be explained through normal attrition, not as some kind of festering cesspool that must be cleaned up no matter who it annoys. As much as I concede these messages will eliminate some bad caches, I do not believe it will actually improve cache quality because caches going bad is just a fact of life.

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Doesn't this all come down to personal responsibility and communication?

Yes! That's exactly what it comes down to: personal responsibility of other geocachers to recognize a potential problem and communicate it to others through the system. I'm objecting to discarding that procedure and replacing it with a robot.

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

This isn't about every cache being pristine.   It's about holding up our part of the bargain.    Unfortunately, in today's world, a simple handshake isn't enough anymore.

This isn't about holding up our part of the bargain: it's all about making sure COs are holding up their part of the bargain. We're OK with pestering COs at will regardless of whether they're responsible COs or not, all so we can avoid playing our role by reporting problems we see.

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

And I ask whether there's really a problem with cache quality. We can't really measure how many false positives we're talking about, but in my caching experience, the number of bad caches can be explained through normal attrition, not as some kind of festering cesspool that must be cleaned up no matter who it annoys. As much as I concede these messages will eliminate some bad caches, I do not believe it will actually improve cache quality because caches going bad is just a fact of life.

Yes! That's exactly what it comes down to: personal responsibility of other geocachers to recognize a potential problem and communicate it to others through the system. I'm objecting to discarding that procedure and replacing it with a robot.

This isn't about holding up our part of the bargain: it's all about making sure COs are holding up their part of the bargain. We're OK with pestering COs at will regardless of whether they're responsible COs or not, all so we can avoid playing our role by reporting problems we see.

To me an absent cache owner is a problem with the quality of caches and the game. 

Unfortunately it seems as though not enough cachers are willing to use those logs to communicate those issues.

Bottom line is,  there seems to be way to many caches out there today for GS to handle properly.  If they think the health score helps them keep the game from getting out of control than who am I to argue.  Their site, their rules.   

I have no problem playing by their rules because I knew what they were when I signed up.   The basic idea of cache ownership hasn't changed all that much.  The only real difference I can see is that GS is beginning to expect cache owners to hold up their end of the bargain.          

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Bottom line is,  there seems to be way to many caches out there today for GS to handle properly.

I think dprovan's point is that GS shouldn't be handling all those caches. Rather, we, as a community, should be handling all those caches using the tools already available.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

for the most part OM's are a good indication that the cache is being maintained and should be in good shape when you find it

Yup. I said as much.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

That's exactly what it comes down to: personal responsibility of other geocachers to recognize a potential problem and communicate it to others through the system. I'm objecting to discarding that procedure and replacing it with a robot.

Who's discarding that producedure?  The CHS is in addition to that procedure. Both should exist. Both should be encouraged.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

This isn't about holding up our part of the bargain: it's all about making sure COs are holding up their part of the bargain. We're OK with pestering COs at will regardless of whether they're responsible COs or not, all so we can avoid playing our role by reporting problems we see.

It's both. If cachers wouldn't shy away from helping owners (and other cachers) know there are (or be alerted to potential) problems with the cache, and if cache owners would simply do due diligence according to the agreement to ensure the listing and cache are in good condition when there's sufficient doubt, then no one would be receiving any emails. I think that's the ideal we're striving towards here.

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

To me an absent cache owner is a problem with the quality of caches and the game.

An absent owner doesn't immediately mean low quality caches. So no. The issue with absent cache owners is one of no one claiming resposibility if and when an issue may arise at some point in the future; and thus not abiding by their agreement for having said caches listed on gc.com.

An owner being absent doesn't mean a cache will be bad. A good cache can last for years without a problem, without needing maintenance or owner checkups. In theory, those years the cache may be with or without an active owner, and no one would be the wiser.  Merely treating a good condition cache as if it's in bad condition because the owner is not immediately available is not a good precedent.  But this is heading back into another thread topic's territory...

Edited October 3, 2017 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Whichever way you try to spin this, do remember that the set of people who didn't do anything about it includes the one person actually responsible for the cache - as much as you seem to want pin the responsibility on someone else.

That's true, but however you want to try and spin this, you could have done something about it but didn't. I hold you responsible for that even while recognizing you're not the one ultimately responsible for the cache. Instead of doing anything yourself, you support this process that annoys innocent responsible COs and, after a much longer delay, finally gets rid of caches no one's responsible for including some that have no problems.

I've logged my fair share of NA's in the past - often to the gall of others in the community who rail against such things for all sorts reasons - most of them devoid of any merit.

Although I'll confess to increasing inaction of late and will happily shoulder the responsibility through inaction you seem determined to foist on everyone but the CO.

I think I've already mentioned before that my recent inaction is entirely intentional - because I want to see if the health score is having any positive impact in my local area. To date I think it is not - but I realise that I need to be patient and see how things pan out over a longer period before leaping to any ill informed conclusions.

I'm also interested to see if anyone else steps up to the plate.

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Also do remember that many people aren't comfortable with claiming that a cache must be missing based on the logs of others alone - they like to check out the facts for themselves.

Yes, I remember, but that's not really relevant here because you've obviously concluded these caches are missing or you wouldn't have brought them up as examples of caches that shouldn't be on the map. Why not take responsibility for your decision instead of demanding it be resolved imperfectly through an impersonal, automated process? If you can't do that without checking them yourself, then go check them yourself. It makes no sense to say you can't act on them without checking on them personally, and then say that problem can be resolve by using a process that's the exact opposite of checking on the cache physically: it doesn't even check the text in the logs.

You appear to be making some connection between conclusions I may have arrived at and the discomfort of others in connection with claiming a cache must be missing based on the logs of others alone.

I confess that connection still escapes me.

Nor am I demanding anything in particluar - simply making observations over a period of time.

If we agree on anything at all it might be that the CHS isn't resolving the problem - at least in my local area.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Doesn't this all come down to personal responsibility and communication?

Yes! That's exactly what it comes down to: personal responsibility of other geocachers to recognize a potential problem and communicate it to others through the system. I'm objecting to discarding that procedure and replacing it with a robot.

Why object to something which isn't happening?

[+Team Microdot]

57 minutes ago, niraD said:

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Bottom line is,  there seems to be way to many caches out there today for GS to handle properly.

I think dprovan's point is that GS shouldn't be handling all those caches. Rather, we, as a community, should be handling all those caches using the tools already available.

I'm holding dprovan resonsible for this as he's done nothing about it

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Owners who regularly monitor, check and post OMs won't be getting an HC email message, other active owners who refuse to physically check their cache or use the OM, seem to more often get insulted by an HC email.  Maybe the automated email message isn't such a good idea.

But I hope they keep the HC as a reviewer tool. I've seen a couple of neglected caches, where finders will not post NMs/NAs (1 or 2 years of DNFs - with a few false "Finds" scattered throughout), get a much needed reviewer disable.

Then how do you explain the one I got? The cache was only 7 weeks old at the time - how often do you have to visit it and log an OM to keep the beast happy?

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm holding dprovan resonsible for this as he's done nothing about it

"When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you."

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, niraD said:

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'm holding dprovan resonsible for this as he's done nothing about it

"When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you."

Does that mean there's nine fingers pointing back the other way?

Where does it all end?

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sure there are many examples out there,  but compared to the overall number of caches that don't seem to be effected it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem.    We've already been supplied with many examples of how this tool helps reviewers as well as a small sample of the caches that have rightfully archived because of it.     Your example is one that I'm sure slipped through the cracks but nothing that I'm sure couldn't be fixed.  

The problem is it can't be fixed - counting DNFs is simply a terrible way to measure cache health. Unless you can stop everyone from logging DNFs unless they're absolutely certain the cache is missing (such as by confirming its location with a previous finder), this DNF-counting algorithm is going to continue to generate false positives.

Even worse, this flawed CHS is now being used for other things besides a reviewer tool and email generator, such as the recent virtual rewards.

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The problem is it can't be fixed - counting DNFs is simply a terrible way to measure cache health.

Although...

Before the CHS ever existed a long run of DNF's, no response from the CO, perhaps an NM and ultimately an NA would see the cache archived

Now the CHS exists - a long run of DNF's, no response from the CO, an auto-generated email to the CO, still no response from the CO, reviewer attention, ultimately we see the cache archived.

Not really a huge difference.

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The problem is it can't be fixed - counting DNFs is simply a terrible way to measure cache health.

Although...

Before the CHS ever existed a long run of DNF's, no response from the CO, perhaps an NM and ultimately an NA would see the cache archived

Now the CHS exists - a long run of DNF's, no response from the CO, an auto-generated email to the CO, still no response from the CO, reviewer attention, ultimately we see the cache archived.

Not really a huge difference.

The difference is responsible COs whose caches occasionally get DNFs for all manner of reasons are being caught in the net, getting emails telling them their caches need fixing or archiving, and now, it seems, being excluded through no fault of their own in CHS-based things like the virtual rewards.

[+Team Microdot]

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The difference is responsible COs whose caches occasionally get DNFs for all manner of reasons are being caught in the net, getting emails telling them their caches need fixing or archiving, and now, it seems, being excluded through no fault of their own in CHS-based things like the virtual rewards.

Fair point.

The prospect of being excluded from virtual rewards as a result of an undeserved CHS does leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

The only real difference I can see is that GS is beginning to expect cache owners to hold up their end of the bargain.

I don't recall signing up to having to visit my caches and log an OM after each and every DNF, even those immediately followed by a find as appears to be the case in some of the recent examples quoted in this thread, but this seems to be the expectation of those responsible for the CHS. That might be reasonable for P&Gs and LPCs (and even they can generate DNFs for reasons unrelated to the cache, like muggle presence), but it's completely unreasonable for high D/T caches that are expected to generate DNFs by design or take a lot of effort for the CO to visit.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Then how do you explain the one I got? The cache was only 7 weeks old at the time - how often do you have to visit it and log an OM to keep the beast happy?

I think Groundspeak would do themselves a favor by not sending the auto-email. It hits a nerve with many owners.

But the CHS tool is needed because very few people will log an NM, and almost no one will log an NA. Yet some insist that the answer is: 'People should log NMs and NAs' in the face of massive evidence that people do not want to log NMs and NAs (and owners do not want to log OMs--most don't because they've abandoned the cache). Most cachers think litter is a good cache--stuff left by someone and never monitored, maintained or removed, only to be replaced by again by someone who will not monitor or maintain or remove what they left behind.

[+barefootjeff]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think Groundspeak would do themselves a favor by not sending the auto-email. It hits a nerve with many owners.

But the CHS tool is needed because very few people will log an NM, and almost no one will log an NA. Yet some insist that the answer is: 'People should log NMs and NAs' in the face of massive evidence that people do not want to log NMs and NAs (and owners do not want to log OMs--most don't because they've abandoned the cache). Most cachers think litter is a good cache--stuff left by someone and never monitored, maintained or removed, only to be replaced by again by someone who will not monitor or maintain or remove what they left behind.

Around here, NMs and NAs do get logged and derelict or missing caches are archived in due course through that mechanism. The reviewers here don't appear to be taking proactive measures to remove abandoned listings, either through the CHS or otherwise, as I guess they don't see a need, and it's quite rare for me to encounter a cache that's in such poor condition that I can't sign the log. The result is that the only impact the CHS is having here is the false positive emails going to conscientious COs.

[+frinklabs]

I see the CHS like the RIDE program. 

A minor inconvenience for those hit with the false positive, but at least we can see an effort is being made to mitigate the issue.

And the upside when it works is a good thing.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, frinklabs said:

I see the CHS like the RIDE program. 

A minor inconvenience for those hit with the false positive, but at least we can see an effort is being made to mitigate the issue.

And the upside when it works is a good thing.

The CHS has been in operation for well over two years now. In another thread a few months back I asked if anyone had noticed an improvement in cache health that might have resulted from it. If I recall correctly, no-one had.

[+L0ne.R]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Around here, NMs and NAs do get logged and derelict or missing caches are archived in due course through that mechanism.

There are 785 caches with the red cross attribute within 50 miles of one of your recent cache hides.

Some comments from the top 4 on the list:

• Loved the chair but the log was paper mush. Didn't have any to replace it, sorry x -- the NM was logged in January, 4 more finds, no more NMs, no reviewer action
• Needs a new logbook urgently. The old one is turning into a pile of mush. -- Owner Last Visited 11/19/2013
• Having failed to trawl through all logs did not read that this appears not to be st GZ!!! (but nearer 19.749 17.837) -- several people have logged better coordinates but the owner has not changed them.
• Log paper is pulp. Couldn't unroll it. -- most of the active owner's caches have red wrenches, and he does not archive his caches he let's reviewers do it.

Quite similar to my area. Seems like a broken system to me. But I know I'm in a minority when I feel that there is a lack of responsible cache ownership. Most people would rather log a found and move on rather then an NM or NA. NMs can go months, sometimes years before someone else will log one. Many will log comments in their find logs but won't post the NM or NA. And yes, the CHS doesn't seem to be making a dent. But it's early days. I still have hope that maybe 2019 will be different, but it may be too late by then.

Personally if I was going to visit Australia, I would not geocache. It seems to be about the same as it is here. There's a better chance that I will find an abandoned wet mess. But that's OK. The game will go on. Most people who play this game continue to play because they don't care about the geocache part of geocaching, it's the least important part.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by L0ne.R