Demonising the DNF

[+L0ne.R]

32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

I've seen 2 that had to be a CHS catch. Long string of DNFs on low D-rated caches, yet no one would post an NM.

But generally, no I have not seen a marked improvement in cache health. There are currently 985 red wrenches within 35 miles of my location. I'm pretty sure it was about the same last year (i.e. hovering close to 1000).

But I don't think the answer is....do nothing. I think a push to use the CHS more (but not the auto-email) and disable more caches may be in order.

Edited October 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

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. 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.

 

Okay, that's 785 out of a total of 5313 caches within the same radius or about 15%. That means 85% of the caches are in good enough health not to have any outstanding NMs. A fair number of those 785 are also no doubt for minor things like a full logbook that a subsequent finder fixed and the CO never got round to clearing the NM. There's one I just picked fairly close to here where the NM, dated 2010, says "Just a note to any future hunters, and the cache owners. Extensive reinforcment works on this roadside may mean this cahce has been disturbed and may even have been removed. I have not stopped to check it but on a recent drive bye i could see the area is now cleared of trees,and has many fences and reinfocement polesthe rocks have all been redacted so the hiding place may, or may not still exsist it was hard to tell. perhaps a cache check is needed." Turned out the cache wasn't disturbed and is continuing to be found to this very day, but the CO never logged an OM to clear the NM.

All I can say is I'm fairly conscientious about logging NMs when I find a cache that's turned to pulp and out of my 164 finds so far this year I've only logged 3 NMs and one of those was for a cache that was likely missing rather than pulpy. That 50 mile radius would include much of Sydney where micros are probably a lot more prevalent than they are here on the Central Coast, and I don't do much caching south of the Hawkesbury River, so that might also skew the results.

Edit to add: Just scanning down the list of the ones closest to home, a couple are likely missing and will probably have an NA logged on them in due course, many are from wet logs dating back a few years, probably from one of the devastating east coast lows that caused widespread flooding here, but the next finder has dried it out and replaced the log and they're now in good nick in spite of having an uncleared NM.

Another edit to add: Having previously found one of the likely missing caches close to home, I just went and confirmed it has indeed gone so I've done my good deed for the day and logged an NA on it. One down, 784 to go...

Edited October 4, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

If the CHS is being used as a reference by reviewers, then general "cache health" in a region may not be affected as perceived by us. If 5 of 10 caches are dealt with by a reviewer c/o the CHS, then 5 more pop up when a survey is taken, it'll look like there are still 10 caches with issues and no overall improvement. The better question to ask is - do reviewers find the CHS a useful tool to aid in their cache review and general health surveying? If yes (which has been the only response I've seen), then the CHS is indeed useful and beneficial in this context.

However, while I feel the added 'inconvenience' of false positives to owners who don't like getting an automated email is really a non-issue, I do think that as long as there are false positives (even though it's a small fraction), using the CHS to also "reward" (a term I think was a bad idea to use in retrospect) "good cache owners" of whom false positives are not recognized, is not so fair a strategy.  But that's about the only criticism I can muster against the CHS system overall.

[Keystone]

34 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The better question to ask is - do reviewers find the CHS a useful tool to aid in their cache review and general health surveying? If yes (which has been the only response I've seen), then the CHS is indeed useful and beneficial in this context.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

The better question to ask is - do reviewers find the CHS a useful tool to aid in their cache review and general health surveying? If yes (which has been the only response I've seen), then the CHS is indeed useful and beneficial in this context.

 

I see DNFs that have nothing to do with cache health...

[+barefootjeff]

Out of interest, I just did a breakdown of all the DNF logs I've had across my hides:

• Looking in the wrong place / defeated by the camo - 27
• Couldn't solve the field puzzle - 3
• Too many mosquitoes - 2
• Phone/GPSr failure - 2
• Not nimble enough - 2
• Bad weather - 1
• Failing light - 1
• Muggles at GZ - 1
• Too tired and hungry - 1
• Didn't want to get wet (the cache requires wading) - 1
• No internet access (the cache description says that) - 1
• Couldn't find Earthcache container (doh!) - 1
• Missing container or waypoint - 0

[+redsox_mark]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

In my area, I notice more pro-active disabling (usually followed by archiving) of caches by reviewers, without NAs on the cache, and sometimes without NMs.   I believe they are using the health score in some way, but also adding their judgement.     As a reviewer tool, I think it is helping.

What is harder to judge is, are the automatic emails helping?    I see a lot of one side of the coin, COs who are wondering, and sometimes irritated, by getting mails on a cache which they don't believe needs checking.    While we are all experts here and know they can be ignored, many COs see these as coming from "the authority" so they better take action.    So they check on a cache which they don't think needs checking, find that it is fine, and wonder how this helps the game.       The bad/inactive owners will ignore the mails.   

Are there enough caches in the "middle ground" where the email helps?    E.g a CO who gets the mail and says "you know, this one has a few DNFs and it should be easy, I'll check it".    And they find it missing and replace it.        I'm sure there are some cases like this, so it must help some.     I'm not convinced it helps much, but I can't measure that, and I don't think anyone can.  

[Keystone]

As I look through caches that received a health reminder email, I do see the examples where the owner reacted to the email by visiting their cache and performing maintenance that was needed (such as placing a  new container).  There's no particular reason for those owners to post in the forums or complain in other social media outlets, because the reminder email helped them.  So, I believe this category is under-reported.

[+justintim1999]

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yup. I said as much.

 

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

 

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.

 

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...

Isn't it implied that every cache needs to have an active cache owner?   An active cache owner usually means a well maintained cache.  An absent cache owner means that sooner or later the cache will develop issues.   Let's put quality aside for a moment and ask yourself why GS is pushing cache maintenance?   

If you put yourself in GS's shoes I think what we're seeing makes perfect sense. 

GS is first and foremost a business so growth and sustainability are on the top of their list.    To accomplish that they need to increase the number of players, especially players who will go on to  become premium members.

The first step is to make trying the game simpler .  They've done that with the advent of the app.   The second is to insure a quality experience that's consistent,  so new members become long term premium members.   Cache maintenance is key to increasing the likely hood of a cacher having a good experience.  

The health score helps reviewers monitor cache condition and allows GS to address maintenance issue before they can potentially become  a bad experience.    When you throw in the sheer number of caches out there coupled with the increasing number of abandoned caches the app has produced,  it isn't hard to understand what's going on here.

The day's of allowing the user generated logging system to run it's course leaves many bad caches out there for an extended period of time.    These caches throw a bad light on the game as a whole and will potentially  hurt the growth of new and premium members.  Speeding up the process of removing these caches makes sense from a business point of view.  To be honest it makes sense from a players point of view also.

Encouraging everyone to continue using the correct logs in the correct situations will only help the health score become more efficient and in turn make our game better for everyone.

I admit GS has a lot of balls in the air here and there's no clear cut way to handle this without dropping a few.  We have to keep the overall health of the game in focus here and deal with the bumps in the road as they come up.          

[+L0ne.R]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Out of interest, I just did a breakdown of all the DNF logs I've had across my hides:

• Looking in the wrong place / defeated by the camo - 27
• Couldn't solve the field puzzle - 3
• Too many mosquitoes - 2
• Phone/GPSr failure - 2
• Not nimble enough - 2
• Bad weather - 1
• Failing light - 1
• Muggles at GZ - 1
• Too tired and hungry - 1
• Didn't want to get wet (the cache requires wading) - 1
• No internet access (the cache description says that) - 1
• Couldn't find Earthcache container (doh!) - 1
• Missing container or waypoint - 0

Did you get a CHS email for each of these? Or just the one?

[+dprovan]

20 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

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.

It's the difference between friends in the community helping each other with cache quality vs. an impersonal central authority policing COs to keep them in line.

[+justintim1999]

8 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's the difference between friends in the community helping each other with cache quality vs. an impersonal central authority policing COs to keep them in line.

It's the difference between managing thousands of caches and millions of caches.

It means nothing to you if there's a pile of junk out in the middle of the woods somewhere in Spokane Washington but it dose mean something to GS.

Do you really believe GS is impersonal in all this?   There just a listing site right?  No reason why they couldn't wash their hands of the whole thing and allow it become a free-for-all.  I wonder why they don't do that very thing?

Maybe it's more than just a business to them?   We know the reviewers aren't in it for the money.

[+Team Microdot]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

21 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

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.

It's the difference between friends in the community helping each other with cache quality vs. an impersonal central authority policing COs to keep them in line.

True - but where the former isn't working, the latter is a reasonable and useful alternative.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Out of interest, I just did a breakdown of all the DNF logs I've had across my hides:

• Looking in the wrong place / defeated by the camo - 27
• Couldn't solve the field puzzle - 3
• Too many mosquitoes - 2
• Phone/GPSr failure - 2
• Not nimble enough - 2
• Bad weather - 1
• Failing light - 1
• Muggles at GZ - 1
• Too tired and hungry - 1
• Didn't want to get wet (the cache requires wading) - 1
• No internet access (the cache description says that) - 1
• Couldn't find Earthcache container (doh!) - 1
• Missing container or waypoint - 0

Did you get a CHS email for each of these? Or just the one?

Only the one so far, but I'd hazard a guess that at least one other of my caches would have a fairly low CHS even if it's not low enough to trigger the email. But that's not the point, the point is that counting DNF logs, where there's no other evidence of cache problems like outstanding NMs, is a very poor way of assessing the health of a cache. Most of the time, DNFs don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Most of the time, DNFs don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache.

I'd say most of the time 3 or more DNFs in a row, for the average cache in the database,  usually mean there's something wrong with the cache. I expect that the CHS is helping to filter those out. I already stumbled upon another one that was caught by a reviewer--a year of DNFs in a row for a moderate D rating, no NMs,  before the DNFs there were mostly finds, absentee owner. Reviewer caught it and disabled then archived.

Those types of caches are plentiful in the database. Probably 10s of 1000s.

Edited October 4, 2017 by L0ne.R

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's the difference between friends in the community helping each other with cache quality vs. an impersonal central authority policing COs to keep them in line.

True - but where the former isn't working, the latter is a reasonable and useful alternative.

My claim is that the former was working, but I admit it's working less well now as more and more people are being convinced that reviewers are the ones responsible for discovering problems.

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

My claim is that the former was working, but I admit it's working less well now as more and more people are being convinced that reviewers are the ones responsible for discovering problems.

My own observations don't support your claim.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I'd say most of the time 3 or more DNFs in a row, for the average cache in the database,  usually mean there's something wrong with the cache. I expect that the CHS is helping to filter those out. I already stumbled upon another one that was caught by the a reviewer. A year of DNFs in a row for a moderate D rating, no NMs,  before the DNFs there were mostly finds, absentee owner. Reviewer caught it and disabled then archived.

Those types of caches are plentiful in the database. Probably 10s of 1000s.

One of my hides has had 4 in a row and I quite often get 2 in a row, and none of mine are really all that hard. The cache I found last week, a D3 traditional (GC13C3B) had 5 in a row prior to the last 2 finds and if you go back through its logs there are even longer runs of consecutive DNFs. But there's nothing wrong with that cache, it's still the original container with the original logbook and is in near pristine condition after 10 years out there, it's just a tricky hide with an appropriate difficulty rating.

One size doesn't fit all. Three DNFs in a row might suggest a problem for an LPC, but the same isn't true for places where there are a multitude of potential hiding places, poor GPS reception, tricky camo, or even tough terrain that some people can't manage. Then there are ones in scenic locations that attract lots of muggles, particularly during school holidays - they can easily get long strings of DNFs through no fault of the cache.

Even relatively easy caches, if they've been out there long enough, will occasionally get 3 DNFs in a row just from statistical probability.

Then there are D3+ caches that are intentionally difficult. If they don't regularly get 3 or more DNFs in a row they're probably overrated.

Edit to add: DNFs also beget DNFs. People are likely to give up sooner if the last log was a DNF than if it was a find.

Edited October 4, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

My claim is that the former was working, but I admit it's working less well now as more and more people are being convinced that reviewers are the ones responsible for discovering problems.

How?   Someone has to post a DNF, NM or NA before anything even starts to happen.  Posts like this are the only thing I see that are trying to convince people that GS and reviewers have somehow gone rogue.        

[+colleda]

On 03/10/2017 at 7:00 PM, 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 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.

 

A possible reason may be algorythm related. For example, have there been any OMs since the cache was first published, assuming it had been placed some time ago?

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, colleda said:

On 03/10/2017 at 7:00 PM, 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 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.

 

A possible reason may be algorythm related. For example, have there been any OMs since the cache was first published, assuming it had been placed some time ago?

 

The Help Centre page on "Maintenance Expectations" lists these CO responsibilities:

Quote

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

• Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
• Replace broken or missing containers.
• Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
• Replace full or wet logbooks.
• Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
• Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
• Delete inappropriate logs.
• Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

Nowhere does it say that a CO must log an OM, unless they need to do so to clear an NM. If logging OMs in response to DNFs is now a requirement (and this is of course still just speculation on how the CHS works), that really needs to be spelt out somewhere.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

How?   Someone has to post a DNF, NM or NA before anything even starts to happen.  Posts like this are the only thing I see that are trying to convince people that GS and reviewers have somehow gone rogue.

My one and only gripe is that DNF has become included in this list of action logs. Once upon a time they were just informative - a searcher didn't find the cache, end of story. I still don't think GS and reviewers should be taking action against caches whose only crime is to have a few people not be able to find them. Once an NM is logged by the people on the ground who are actually looking for it, fine, go for your life, send out nudge emails if there's no CO response within a reasonable time and, if necessary, go on from there towards archival. But taking action based on DNFs alone I think is overstepping the mark. If people in some parts of the world are afraid to log NMs and NAs, that's the problem that needs to be fixed.

[+thebruce0]

I'm still baffled that there's so much pushback against an innocuous email. Really. That's all it is. Despite potential mis-inferring essential action, the email is harmless.

Using the CHS for 'rewarding' when there are false positives is different, but getting an email because of DNFs - whether it legitimately needs maintenance or not - is such a minor thing in the grand scheme. I just don't get the unbearableness of this concept.

[+L0ne.R]

18 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If people in some parts of the world are afraid to log NMs and NAs, that's the problem that needs to be fixed.

We could start in the forums by not calling people 'cache cops' for posting NMs or NAs. 

And maybe, at events, pat the guy on the back that posts NMs and NAs in your community. 

[+barefootjeff]

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm still baffled that there's so much pushback against an innocuous email. Really. That's all it is. Despite potential mis-inferring essential action, the email is harmless.

Using the CHS for 'rewarding' when there are false positives is different, but getting an email because of DNFs - whether it legitimately needs maintenance or not - is such a minor thing in the grand scheme. I just don't get the unbearableness of this concept.

Firstly it's a philosophical point of assigning meaning to DNF logs when that meaning wasn't the intent of the logger. We now have the single click option of adding a boilerplate "the cache might be missing" NM to a DNF log if that's what the DNFer thinks, so why do we have to assign that meaning to all the other DNFs that don't imply a missing cache? This may over time have some repercussions, like discouraging people from logging DNFs if they don't think the cache is missing or discouraging COs from hiding caches that might get more than some unspecified average number of DNFs.

Secondly, although the email is couched in "might" and "may", it's still an official email from HQ saying that, in their eyes, your cache has been singled out for special attention, and, with that, the implication that the CO is expected to do something in response to make things right. It even lists their expected responses - visit the cache to fix the problem and log an OM, disable it until you can or archive it. This is backed up by the Help Centre page that says further action might be taken if the cache's health score doesn't improve. How can you improve the score if there's nothing wrong with the cache? It's all well and good to say here that it's a harmless email that can be simply ignored, but that isn't conveyed to those receiving the email who aren't following the forums. And regardless of all the logical arguments saying that it isn't, it still comes across as a slap on the wrist or a wake-up call to an allegedly slack CO.

Thirdly, it's the nature of the caches that it's catching, like one of the more recent ones reported here: a D3.5 with no history of NMs, the most recent log a find but a few prior DNFs. The mind boggles as to why this cache was singled out. A D3.5 should be getting a fair number of DNFs, otherwise it'd be a D1 or D1.5, and even if it does, the find should surely clear any implication the DNFs might have meant it was missing. If it were just borderline ones, like a D1.5 that suddenly gets a string of DNFs, then perhaps it could be forgiven, but it's not. The ones I've seen reported are just completely out of left field. It's almost like it's just picking caches at random or specifically targeting higher D/T caches, like the D2/T5 of mine it pinged for just one DNF or the other high D/T caches mentioned a couple of pages back that had only one or two DNFs.

Finally, we now know that the CHS is being used for more than just sending out harmless emails. What will it be used for next? HQ have committed resources into creating it so presumably they'll want to maximise their bang for buck. Perhaps, um, there's been some talk recently of blocking negligent COs from creating new caches - will the CHS be part of that? Who knows, and we probably won't even be told if it is.

[+thebruce0]

hm.

Nope, still not understanding why the uproar about receiving an email that itself does absolutely nothing. If the email weren't sent out, no one would be the wiser, and the tool would still be used the same way by reviewers. I'm only talking about the email here. I've already expressed my opinion about the impression of the CHS being used for 'rewards' as long as there are false positives, and about this futile effort to reverse engineer the algorithm to explain true/false positives rather than just help hone it to be better, and about the likely benefit of a slight rewording of the email text (which is unlikely, if the urgent nudge was the intended result).  But even just getting the email - this is what had people enraged (before the virtuals). And I really see no [good] reason why.  It seems people are simply now against it on principle more than anything.  But practically speaking, it's still just an email.  The review process hasn't changed - a human makes a judgement call after looking at the immediate situation.  That's all, nothing new. Their attention is just gained by an automated score rather than a log trigger.

The way I see it, is if you believe you received the email in error, you can either rant aimlessly at the process, or you can contact a reviewer and let them know of what you believe to be a false positive. Or, of course, you could just log an OM after sufficiently verifying the cache (ideally this would be done first, so that you actually know that it's a false positive).  And even then the email may have been triggered by some other combination of factors you don't know, in which case the algorithm wouldn't need to be adjusted because it did exactly as (GS) expected. And, if you logged that OM after verifying the cache, then you did what GS is hoping COs will more commonly do.

 

In short, did you get the email (for whatever reason)? First you'll need to actually check to verify the cache is in good condition in order to know that it is a false positive. And if that's the case, why not log the (accurate) OM anyway? And if you then know that it IS a false positive, you can work with a reviewer or GS to pass on the information, then they can deem (most likely without further revelation to you) whether it IS a false positive, and adjust the algorithm accordingly. Win win win.  Well, except, you know, the CO having received an annoying email.

Edited October 5, 2017 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

In short, did you get the email (for whatever reason)? First you'll need to actually check to verify the cache is in good condition in order to know that it is a false positive. And if that's the case, why not log the (accurate) OM anyway? And if you then know that it IS a false positive, you can work with a reviewer or GS to pass on the information, then they can deem (most likely without further revelation to you) whether it IS a false positive, and adjust the algorithm accordingly. Win win win.  Well, except, you know, the CO having received an annoying email.

Yes, I'd swapped photos with the DNFer that confirmed she'd been looking in the wrong place, then she went back a couple of days later and found it, so I knew for certain it wasn't missing. Should I have then gone out to check it anyway so I could log an OM? It was a T5, so it's not just a matter of driving down the road and looking under a bush or a lamp cover. It's a 4km kayak paddle on a waterway that would've been busy with waterskiers and jet skis at that time of year (the middle of our summer holidays between Christmas and New Year) and I really didn't want to do that if I didn't have to - I'd much rather do a planned maintenance check on that one at a quiet time when the waterway's empty of power boats, the tides are favourable and the winds light.

I also tried reporting the false positive via the Help Centre contact form. The response I got back was an explanation of how the CHS worked, a statement that these emails are generally well accepted by the community and a terse admonishment that When hiding a cache, a geocacher must agree to the guidelines including "Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location." So no indication that they'd even acknowledge the possibility of a false positive and a reassertion that, in their eyes, I was a negligent CO who'd been caught out.

Was there any past history that might have contributed to the email? The cache was only seven weeks old and the only logs prior to the DNF were the publication log, a note from someone planning to attempt it and a find a few days later. That was it, nothing else - no reviewer correspondence, no NMs or NAs, nothing. It was just completely out of left field and I'd dearly love to know how the CHS algorithm picked that one out of all the other caches as being in dire need of maintenance. And now it seems there are still plenty of others like it getting equally bizarre pings.

Edited October 5, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

I suppose I should add that it galls me when I see posts like this:

Quote

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.

Perhaps they'll think differently when they win the CHS lotto.

[+redsox_mark]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Firstly it's a philosophical point of assigning meaning to DNF logs when that meaning wasn't the intent of the logger. We now have the single click option of adding a boilerplate "the cache might be missing" NM to a DNF log if that's what the DNFer thinks, so why do we have to assign that meaning to all the other DNFs that don't imply a missing cache? This may over time have some repercussions, like discouraging people from logging DNFs if they don't think the cache is missing or discouraging COs from hiding caches that might get more than some unspecified average number of DNFs.

 

This is what bothers me the most.   I see this happening more, especially once a CO gets some CHS emails.   Example of a recent conversation with a very reasonable CO:   "some guys who never made it to GZ (their logs said they turned back because of the weather) logged DNFs and now I have Groundspeak sending me mails".   He wasn't really angry, it was just conversation at the pub, but I'm sure he was at least a little bit annoyed.  Yes the emails can be ignored, but I understand why COs don't like getting these.    Also the more they learn that DNFs lower CHS, they won't like getting DNFs.      And as a finder, the more (some) cachers know that logging DNF will impact the CHS, the less likely (some) cachers will be to log one, unless they are fairly sure it is missing.  

I'm not a good finder, I log a fair few DNFs.   I don't like the thought of a CO getting a mail (or even just a lower score) because of my eyesight and my DNF.  Or cachers talking at the pub that they keep getting emails from Groundspeak because Mark is rubbish at finding.  

It doesn't cause me angst, but as an owner I don't like knowing the CHS is being lowered by DNFs when there is no issue.   A Wherigo of mine recently had 2 DNFs, by very experienced cachers (caching together).   The DNFs just said "too difficult".   I have no idea if they found the Wherigo too difficult or the final, or whether they just decided it would take too long to finish.   I was on vacation at the time.   By the time I came back, it had been found by someone else.    There is no reason for me to check on it now and log OM as I know from the last log it is fine.   But I know those DNFs lowered my CHS, and yes, that bothers me.    And I know, from what my reviewer told me, that the Found it will help, but won't offset the 2 DNFs.    So I have a choice, I can just live with that (and ignore an email if I get one), or I can do a "needless" OM to keep my record clean.  

It's not so much "demonizing" the DNF, but using it for other than it was intended.  

[+Team Microdot]

Let's imagine for a moment that TPTB decided to switch off the automated emails so that the first sign of any concern from on high was a communication from a volunteer reviewer.

Would people be happier with that?

Or would we see volunteer reviewers, quite rightly in my opinion, thinking heck - because people can't look after their own geocaches I now have to invest EVEN MORE of my time for free cleaning up after them ?

And would we also see the railing against the CHS simply switch to railing against the idea that Big Brother is watching you?

I suspect so.

People react so badly to a peer from their own tier of the so called 'community' daring to suggest an issue with their cache, with cries of caching police and other peurile insults that it would seem grossly unfair to simply divert all that to the reviewer's inbox.

So as things are, a robot gets the blame - and people still get upset.

 

[+barefootjeff]

17 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Let's imagine for a moment that TPTB decided to switch off the automated emails so that the first sign of any concern from on high was a communication from a volunteer reviewer.

Would people be happier with that?

Or would we see volunteer reviewers, quite rightly in my opinion, thinking heck - because people can't look after their own geocaches I now have to invest EVEN MORE of my time for free cleaning up after them ?

And would we also see the railing against the CHS simply switch to railing against the idea that Big Brother is watching you?

I suspect so.

People react so badly to a peer from their own tier of the so called 'community' daring to suggest an issue with their cache, with cries of caching police and other peurile insults that it would seem grossly unfair to simply divert all that to the reviewer's inbox.

So as things are, a robot gets the blame - and people still get upset.

 

To me, the solution is simple - don't start counting DNFs until there's an NM that hasn't been responded to. HQ have made it about as easy as they can for people to click on the "Report a Problem - the cache might be missing" option when logging a DNF, so just hold off until someone's done that. That way, there 's something concrete instead of just trying to infer cache condition from logs that were never meant to imply it. But, I guess I'm pretty much a lone voice in this.

As to your suggestion, removing the email would stop the annoyance factor, but it still wouldn't resolve the question of why some caches with just one or two DNFs and no other issues are being given very low health scores. There's something fundamentally wrong with the algorithm and this would become a sore point again if and when they decide to start using the CHS for more things.

Edited October 5, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+redsox_mark]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To me, the solution is simple - don't start counting DNFs until there's an NM that hasn't been responded to. HQ have made it about as easy as they can for people to click on the "Report a Problem - the cache might be missing" option when logging a DNF, so just hold off until someone's done that. That way, there 's something concrete instead of just trying to infer cache condition from logs that were never meant to imply it. But, I guess I'm pretty much a lone voice in this.

 

Not a lone voice, I agree with you.   

The reason for counting DNFs has been speculated here to be based on cachers just not logging NMs, so the old process wasn't working.   But as you say, they have also changed that process, it is now a tick box.   I've seen more NMs recently because of this.     So, with the new NM system, is it really necessary (or beneficial) to count DNFs?

But if Groundspeak and reviewers thinks counting DNFs helps, I can live with it.   I'm not up in arms about it.   I just think it would be better if DNFs weren't counted in this way.

[+Team Microdot]

8 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

To me, the solution is simple - don't start counting DNFs until there's an NM that hasn't been responded to. HQ have made it about as easy as they can for people to click on the "Report a Problem - the cache might be missing" option when logging a DNF, so just hold off until someone's done that. That way, there 's something concrete instead of just trying to infer cache condition from logs that were never meant to imply it. But, I guess I'm pretty much a lone voice in this.

 

Not a lone voice, I agree with you.   

The reason for counting DNFs has been speculated here to be based on cachers just not logging NMs, so the old process wasn't working.   But as you say, they have also changed that process, it is now a tick box.   I've seen more NMs recently because of this.     So, with the new NM system, is it really necessary (or beneficial) to count DNFs?

But if Groundspeak and reviewers thinks counting DNFs helps, I can live with it.   I'm not up in arms about it.   I just think it would be better if DNFs weren't counted in this way.

So the negative feelings end up instead directed at cachers who logged NM when they really shouldn't.

As far as I can see, anyone who has the propensity to get bent out of shape in connection with any suggestion that they need to check out their cache is going to get bent out of shape no matter who or what makes that suggestion - so why inflict that on a person when a robot can handle the abuse with zero suffering?

[+redsox_mark]

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So the negative feelings end up instead directed at cachers who logged NM when they really shouldn't.

As far as I can see, anyone who has the propensity to get bent out of shape in connection with any suggestion that they need to check out their cache is going to get bent out of shape no matter who or what makes that suggestion - so why inflict that on a person when a robot can handle the abuse with zero suffering?

I'm not talking about cachers getting bent out of shape.     The cachers I talk to are reasonable.   If someone logs a DNF and thinks it is likely missing (and so logs NM), they understand that.

They don't understand getting an email telling them there may be a problem when the DNFs actually say they never looked for the cache.   Nor do they understand that once this happens, even if the cache gets found, the health score won't be fully restored unless they do an OM.

 

[+Team Microdot]

6 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

I'm not talking about cachers getting bent out of shape.     The cachers I talk to are reasonable.   If someone logs a DNF and thinks it is likely missing (and so logs NM), they understand that.

They don't understand getting an email telling them there may be a problem when the DNFs actually say they never looked for the cache.   Nor do they understand that once this happens, even if the cache gets found, the health score won't be fully restored unless they do an OM.

 

Sounds like a quite simple non-event to me.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, redsox_mark said:

9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So the negative feelings end up instead directed at cachers who logged NM when they really shouldn't.

As far as I can see, anyone who has the propensity to get bent out of shape in connection with any suggestion that they need to check out their cache is going to get bent out of shape no matter who or what makes that suggestion - so why inflict that on a person when a robot can handle the abuse with zero suffering?

I'm not talking about cachers getting bent out of shape.     The cachers I talk to are reasonable.   If someone logs a DNF and thinks it is likely missing (and so logs NM), they understand that.

They don't understand getting an email telling them there may be a problem when the DNFs actually say they never looked for the cache.   Nor do they understand that once this happens, even if the cache gets found, the health score won't be fully restored unless they do an OM.

I was about to say the same thing, Mark. If a person actually at GZ makes an assessment that the cache might be missing and logs an NM, I'd be happy to go and check because I want my caches to be found and really do want to keep on top of actual problems. There've actually been a couple of situations where my caches have been disturbed that I've wished someone HAD logged an NM as it would've alerted me earlier. Its this alogorithm making totally bizarre calls on caches where blind Freddy could see there's nothing wrong that's got my goat.

[+barefootjeff]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Sounds like a quite simple non-event to me.

Logging an OM properly (I mean not an armchair one) on a T4.5 or T5 cache isn't always a simple non-event, and it seems to be these high D/T caches that the algorithm is having the most trouble with.

Edited October 5, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+Team Microdot]

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

blind Freddy could see there's nothing wrong

I haven't met him - is he a cacher, a vlounteer or a Lackey?

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

blind Freddy could see there's nothing wrong

I haven't met him - is he a cacher, a vlounteer or a Lackey?

It's what I often think the BF in my abbreviated caching name (BFJ) stands for when I'm logging a DNF on a cache everyone else finds easy.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

blind Freddy could see there's nothing wrong

I haven't met him - is he a cacher, a vlounteer or a Lackey?

It's what I often think the BF in my abbreviated caching name (BFJ) stands for when I'm logging a DNF on a cache everyone else finds easy.

I know how that feels

[WW41]

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

  I just think it would be better if DNFs weren't counted in this way.

The problem that I see is that 1000s of caches will continue to stay in the database with years of DNF strings on low D rated caches. Caches/listings abandoned, missing, and in need of the attention of a reviewer. 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Auntie Quated

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Auntie Quated said:

The problem that I see is that 1000s of caches will continue to stay in the database with years of DNF strings on low D rated caches. Caches/listings abandoned, missing, and in need of the attention of a reviewer. 

There's already a mechanism for doing that, called the NA log. I logged one yesterday on a cache in my neighbourhood that has gone missing (I'd previously found it so was able to confirm that), with a 3-month-old unresponded NM and a CO who hasn't been active for over a year. In due course the reviewer who looks after NAs will act on it and the problem will be solved.

All it takes is just one of those people amongst your strings of DNFs to click on the "Report a problem - cache might be missing" button to generate the NM that starts the ball rolling. Maybe if everyone just checked around their immediate neighbourhood occasionally for caches that need an NM/NA, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[+Team Microdot]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe if everyone just checked around their immediate neighbourhood occasionally for caches that need an NM/NA, we wouldn't be in this mess

I've been that person.

I've been on the receiving end of a considerable amount of abuse as a result.

It also reminds me of a comment the other day from one cacher who issues such abuse that NM/NA on caches in HIS area from cachers outside HIS area have no worth.

So maybe THAT sort of thing is actually the underlying problem that needs fixing...

[+barefootjeff]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

I've been that person.

I've been on the receiving end of a considerable amount of abuse as a result.

It also reminds me of a comment the other day from one cacher who issues such abuse that NM/NA on caches in HIS area from cachers outside HIS area have no worth.

So maybe THAT sort of thing is actually the underlying problem that needs fixing...

Yep, exactly. That's the problem that needs to be fixed.

[anpefi]

I think we are missing something in this discussion. DNFs and their impact on CHS and then on the dramatic email, are not just related to the physical integrity of the cache. If I remember well, in the Groundpeak mail it says something about "maybe the D/T should be adjusted". In that way, DNFs are essential to trigger the email. A 1.5/1.5 cache with 2-3 DNFs (even if they are from newbies) is a good candidate to think that maybe the ratio is not "well adjusted". The email is automatic, but we, as owners, are thinking humans. I can own a cache 1.5/1.5 with 3 DNFs that triggered the email, but if there are a couple of founds later I can judge. Is the cache missing? No (if the Found it logs seems legit) Is the D rating too low? If those DNFs are the unique ones, maybe not, if there were older DNFs, then I should reconsider its dificulty. After this judging I can perform maintenance (replacing/fixing the cache if needed, or just changing difficulty or given further hints) logging it as OM. End of the issue.

In my area there is an owner that clearly underrated his caches difficulty. He had a couple of them 1.5/1.5 with Found it/DNF ratios: 87/16 75/16 and the caches were never missing. That ratios clearly indicate that caches has D issues (both are nanos very well camouflaged and with 5-10m error. In one of those caches, he should receive the email in the last batch, because he promptly go to check the container (he didn't get that the problem could be the D/T ratio) and log a OM. In the other one, a reviewer deactivate it and give him 4 weeks to solve problems. He didn't solve it because he took it wrongly as a personal attack and didn't understand that the reviewer action was a "semi-automatic" one.

 

So, IMHO, DNFs are quite useful, and the pain they could caused to some owners are so easily solved that I cannot understand, even after all this long thread, why we should demonising them

[+Team Microdot]

9 minutes ago, anpefi said:

So, IMHO, DNFs are quite useful, and the pain they could caused to some owners are so easily solved that I cannot understand, even after all this long thread, why we should demonising them

Ah yes - if we all make all of our caches D5 the emails will go away - problem solved

Thanks for pointing that out

[anpefi]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

Ah yes - if we all make all of our caches D5 the emails will go away - problem solved

Thanks for pointing that out

No, but I suppose as owners we can have the judgment to determine if the DNFs are due or not to a possible rating problem. If we consider that these 3 DNFs do not justify an increase in difficulty (or give more clues) we can always put an OM with "The cache is in its place and I realize that the difficulty is appropriate, despite the latest DNFs." But at least have a little self-criticism and think, for a second, whether those DNFs indicate something or not. If DNFs continue to arrive then we may have to reconsider it better, perhaps with discussion with a reviewer (human to human interaction)

[+Team Microdot]

9 minutes ago, anpefi said:

No, but I suppose as owners we can have the judgment to determine if the DNFs are due or not to a possible rating problem. If we consider that these 3 DNFs do not justify an increase in difficulty (or give more clues) we can always put an OM with "The cache is in its place and I realize that the difficulty is appropriate, despite the latest DNFs." But at least have a little self-criticism and think, for a second, whether those DNFs indicate something or not. If DNFs continue to arrive then we may have to reconsider it better, perhaps with discussion with a reviewer (human to human interaction)

Not for me.

I hardly ever even look at the rating.

[+justintim1999]

36 minutes ago, anpefi said:

No, but I suppose as owners we can have the judgment to determine if the DNFs are due or not to a possible rating problem. If we consider that these 3 DNFs do not justify an increase in difficulty (or give more clues) we can always put an OM with "The cache is in its place and I realize that the difficulty is appropriate, despite the latest DNFs." But at least have a little self-criticism and think, for a second, whether those DNFs indicate something or not. If DNFs continue to arrive then we may have to reconsider it better, perhaps with discussion with a reviewer (human to human interaction)

I here ya.   It's human nature for people to believe they've possibly made an error in judgement.   Always easier to blame the problem on something else.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 I see this happening more, especially once a CO gets some CHS emails.   Example of a recent conversation with a very reasonable CO:   "some guys who never made it to GZ (their logs said they turned back because of the weather) logged DNFs and now I have Groundspeak sending me mails".   He wasn't really angry, it was just conversation at the pub, but I'm sure he was at least a little bit annoyed.  Yes the emails can be ignored, but I understand why COs don't like getting these.

Again, it's still the email.  Or rather, it's not actually the email that's the problem - though that gets the rap. It's the algorithm and how it weighs DNFs. And that's an issue of people learning about CHS (regardless of the email) and hearing about how DNFs (without knowing any of the intricate algorithmic details) lower it.

The email is little to no concern (especially once a person knows it's 100% harmless and nothing "happens" because you got the email). It is a Good Thing, overall, once people aren't "insulted" (or proxy-concerned about others) by getting it.  The real issue is what causes the notification to be sent. And I'm confident that this entire thread discussing DNFs has had an impact on their weight and incorporation into the algorithm. Of course, we'll have no idea if that's true because we won't be told, and the debate will ever rage on.

The email notification is a good thing. As I said earlier, people who don't like getting the email can either rant about it, ignore it, heed it, or help TPTB improve the algorithm.  DNFs alone don't flag the email, they are weighed against other factors. So GS needs to be aware of instances that the email is sent when it's felt it shouldn't be - if everything is as it should be, and not even an adjustment of the D for example would be appropriate - so the algorithm can be better tuned (yes, even if we don't get confirmation that the feedback helped).

removing the email would stop the annoyance factor, but it still wouldn't resolve the question of why some caches with just one or two DNFs and no other issues are being given very low health scores

But.... how would anyone know what caches have a low CHS?  For us, only if a reviewer steps in and takes action, seemingly without any prompting, would we have any idea. But that would only happen if they have judged there to actually BE a problem with the cache. So...  Low CHS but no email? Reviewer judges there to not be a problem? Now it's entirely on the reviewer to report false-positives. Some people may prefer that. Some people see the benefit of allowing the community to have that extra nudge that something's of with the CHS - correctly or not.

And removing the email solely for the annoyance factor is ... well let's just say I'm shaking my head.