Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
barefootjeff

The Cache Health Score Two Years On

Recommended Posts

It's now two years since the Cache Health Score was introduced. A lot has been said on this forum about its pros and cons, particularly the way it treats DNF logs, but that's not what I want to discuss in this thread.

 

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature. Are missing or abandoned caches being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone? Have the COs in your area lifted their game to avoid the dreaded "fix it or archive it" email? In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

Share this post


Link to post

As a reviewer, yes. It's a tool to help identify caches that have been neglected and not reported. No action is automatically taken on the cache as a result of the health score. It's just one factor of many taken into consideration when caches are disabled or archived.

Share this post


Link to post

No. The caches most in need of action are the ones most likely to be subject to the throw-down mentality, so this score nonsense doesn't impact them.

Share this post


Link to post

As a reviewer, yes. It's a tool to help identify caches that have been neglected and not reported. No action is automatically taken on the cache as a result of the health score. It's just one factor of many taken into consideration when caches are disabled or archived.

Perhaps this is a regional thing, as I haven't seen the reviewers here proactively disabling or archiving any caches other than ones that have been left disabled for too long by the CO. There are long-abandoned caches with no finds for several years and unacknowledged NMs that I'd have thought would be prime targets for this but they linger on and on until someone eventually logs an NA. So no, as a cache-seeker I've seen no obvious benefit here from the CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

 

Unfortunately, i don't think so. I seem to be getting more email archival notifications than ever. On every one, it's the same ole,, "cache owner has not responded" situation. I'm not positive these archivals are a result of the cache health score though.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature. Are missing or abandoned caches being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone? Have the COs in your area lifted their game to avoid the dreaded "fix it or archive it" email? In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

 

How would we know if any direct reviewer intervention was triggered by the health score or by some other means?

 

We aren't privy to the information which would allow us to answer that question with any confidence.

 

In our area, those CO's who are notoriously poor at maintaining their caches / responding to requests for maintenance don't seem to have improved at all. In fact some, usually those with hundreds of live caches distributed over a wide geographical area, are actually actively encouraging community maintenance right there in black and white on their cache pages.

 

There are some CO's with active caches who have clearly left the game - but their caches seem to remain until someone eventually NA's them and often this happens only when there's nothing there to find and the person posting the NA isn't so desperate for a smiley that they'll hide / pretend to find their own cache at GZ.

Share this post


Link to post

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature. Are missing or abandoned caches being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone? Have the COs in your area lifted their game to avoid the dreaded "fix it or archive it" email? In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

 

How would we know if any direct reviewer intervention was triggered by the health score or by some other means?

 

We aren't privy to the information which would allow us to answer that question with any confidence.

Which is why I didn't ask that question. I simply asked whether any of your local caches were being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone. The presence or absence of an NA log on an archived cache should be visible, as well as the text of the reviewer's notes and archival log. I ask because around here I've yet to see any reviewer-initiated (i.e. non-NA) archivals other than where the CO has left it disabled for too long and then didn't respond to reviewer's request for monthly updates on the cache status.

Share this post


Link to post

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature. Are missing or abandoned caches being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone? Have the COs in your area lifted their game to avoid the dreaded "fix it or archive it" email? In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

 

How would we know if any direct reviewer intervention was triggered by the health score or by some other means?

 

We aren't privy to the information which would allow us to answer that question with any confidence.

Which is why I didn't ask that question. I simply asked whether any of your local caches were being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone. The presence or absence of an NA log on an archived cache should be visible, as well as the text of the reviewer's notes and archival log. I ask because around here I've yet to see any reviewer-initiated (i.e. non-NA) archivals other than where the CO has left it disabled for too long and then didn't respond to reviewer's request for monthly updates on the cache status.

 

Thread title:

 

The Cache Health Score Two Years On

 

You asked:

 

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature.

Share this post


Link to post

Not that I stalk caches in need of being archived but I'd have to say there's not been a positive impact from this initiative in my area.

 

Caches with multiple DNFs and sometimes multiple NMs remain until a NA is posted. Once a NA is posted in my area, within a day a reviewer makes it temporarily disabled for 1 month and then it's disabled.

 

Without the NA posted by a cache, that missing or dilapidated would remain. This is why in the other thread on DNFs I posted that it's a discussion on a problem which doesn't exist and others should DNF as much as they want. There is no DNF Now Causes A Problem situation like some are incorrectly posting.

Edited by Team DEMP

Share this post


Link to post

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature. Are missing or abandoned caches being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone? Have the COs in your area lifted their game to avoid the dreaded "fix it or archive it" email? In short, is there any actual evidence that this is improving the geocaching experience?

 

How would we know if any direct reviewer intervention was triggered by the health score or by some other means?

 

We aren't privy to the information which would allow us to answer that question with any confidence.

Which is why I didn't ask that question. I simply asked whether any of your local caches were being archived by direct reviewer intervention without an NA being posted by anyone. The presence or absence of an NA log on an archived cache should be visible, as well as the text of the reviewer's notes and archival log. I ask because around here I've yet to see any reviewer-initiated (i.e. non-NA) archivals other than where the CO has left it disabled for too long and then didn't respond to reviewer's request for monthly updates on the cache status.

 

Thread title:

 

The Cache Health Score Two Years On

 

You asked:

 

Rather, I'm wondering if anyone has seen an actual improvement in their local caches that can be attributed to this feature.

Fair enough, but I was thinking more in generalised observations than specifics of individual caches there. I guess a better wording might've been are your reviewers now proactively pruning the deadwood that's led to an improvement in quality, which might reasonably imply the tool is being used. The reviewer's note when the cache is disabled warning the CO that archival is imminent if they don't respond might also give a hint I suppose. Anyway I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, I'm just curious if there's been a noticeable improvement in cache quality anywhere since the tool came into being.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

Anyway I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, I'm just curious if there's been a noticeable improvement in cache quality anywhere since the tool came into being.

 

I'm not trying to make a big deal either - just responding to your question as asked - because I think it's an interesting question.

 

If you were to now un-link it to the cache health score it would be a far less interesting question.

Share this post


Link to post

In Reviewer mode, my observation is that ~25% of cache owners who receive a Health Score email do cache maintenance in the following month.

 

How many of these people might have checked hides without the email, I don't know. Some hides have been in trouble for a looong time...

 

Of the other 75%, some I disable, some I put on a bookmark list to watch over time, (typically these are higher difficulty caches, but with quite long runs of DNFs, more consecutive DNFs than in the past), some I eyeball the cache page and just move on.

Share this post


Link to post

In Reviewer mode, my observation is that ~25% of cache owners who receive a Health Score email do cache maintenance in the following month.

 

How many of these people might have checked hides without the email, I don't know. Some hides have been in trouble for a looong time...

 

Of the other 75%, some I disable, some I put on a bookmark list to watch over time, (typically these are higher difficulty caches, but with quite long runs of DNFs, more consecutive DNFs than in the past), some I eyeball the cache page and just move on.

 

Can you please tell us if this set of practices is standard for all reviewers or just a personal discipline?

Share this post


Link to post

It is hard to say.

 

In my area, some reviewers regularly run tools looking for possible issues. I don't know if they use the Health Score or not. This does result in caches getting archived more quickly in some cases.

 

Not bashing the reviewers - they each make their own judgments. I've seen cases where I think action was taken perhaps too quickly, and others which have long outstanding issues not getting targeted. Not sure if it is the health score tool itself or individual reviewers applying their judgement which accounts for the variation.

Share this post


Link to post

It is hard to say.

 

In my area, some reviewers regularly run tools looking for possible issues. I don't know if they use the Health Score or not. This does result in caches getting archived more quickly in some cases.

 

Not bashing the reviewers - they each make their own judgments. I've seen cases where I think action was taken perhaps too quickly, and others which have long outstanding issues not getting targeted. Not sure if it is the health score tool itself or individual reviewers applying their judgement which accounts for the variation.

 

Sorry Mark - are you a volunteer reviewer?

Share this post


Link to post

It is hard to say.

 

In my area, some reviewers regularly run tools looking for possible issues. I don't know if they use the Health Score or not. This does result in caches getting archived more quickly in some cases.

 

Not bashing the reviewers - they each make their own judgments. I've seen cases where I think action was taken perhaps too quickly, and others which have long outstanding issues not getting targeted. Not sure if it is the health score tool itself or individual reviewers applying their judgement which accounts for the variation.

 

Sorry Mark - are you a volunteer reviewer?

 

No, I am not. I'm just commenting on my observations.

Share this post


Link to post

It is hard to say.

 

In my area, some reviewers regularly run tools looking for possible issues. I don't know if they use the Health Score or not. This does result in caches getting archived more quickly in some cases.

 

Not bashing the reviewers - they each make their own judgments. I've seen cases where I think action was taken perhaps too quickly, and others which have long outstanding issues not getting targeted. Not sure if it is the health score tool itself or individual reviewers applying their judgement which accounts for the variation.

 

Sorry Mark - are you a volunteer reviewer?

 

No, I am not. I'm just commenting on my observations.

 

oops - sorry - my mistake - for some reason I now can't quite fathom I thought your reply was in response to my post - which clearly now I look properly it wasn't.

 

Mea culpa :(

Share this post


Link to post

In Reviewer mode, my observation is that ~25% of cache owners who receive a Health Score email do cache maintenance in the following month.

 

How many of these people might have checked hides without the email, I don't know. Some hides have been in trouble for a looong time...

 

Of the other 75%, some I disable, some I put on a bookmark list to watch over time, (typically these are higher difficulty caches, but with quite long runs of DNFs, more consecutive DNFs than in the past), some I eyeball the cache page and just move on.

 

Can you please tell us if this set of practices is standard for all reviewers or just a personal discipline?

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Of the Reviewers that are taking part in this process, they tend to take one of two approaches: taking action before the email goes out, and ones that wait until after the email has gone out as an additional reminder/nudge. I tend to be in the former camp.

 

My numbers tend to run 20%/80% percent compared to Palmetto's. I tend to scrutinize the logs a bit more, compared to an NA generated action. I take in to account "loneliness", or is it just a difficult cache to access or find (i.e. high Terrain and/or Difficulty). I also take into consideration how active the cache owner appears to be on the site.

 

In general, I think I can say that utilization of the Health Score to take action has dramatically reduced the NA log types that I tend to see. The other aspect of the effect, is that the NA logs that I do see, tend to be less frustrated/aggressive sounding. Some of that may be just the auto text that is generated since the logging feature has been altered, but it still seems like a positive direction to me.

Share this post


Link to post

In Reviewer mode, my observation is that ~25% of cache owners who receive a Health Score email do cache maintenance in the following month.

 

How many of these people might have checked hides without the email, I don't know. Some hides have been in trouble for a looong time...

 

Of the other 75%, some I disable, some I put on a bookmark list to watch over time, (typically these are higher difficulty caches, but with quite long runs of DNFs, more consecutive DNFs than in the past), some I eyeball the cache page and just move on.

 

Can you please tell us if this set of practices is standard for all reviewers or just a personal discipline?

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Of the Reviewers that are taking part in this process, they tend to take one of two approaches: taking action before the email goes out, and ones that wait until after the email has gone out as an additional reminder/nudge. I tend to be in the former camp.

 

My numbers tend to run 20%/80% percent compared to Palmetto's. I tend to scrutinize the logs a bit more, compared to an NA generated action. I take in to account "loneliness", or is it just a difficult cache to access or find (i.e. high Terrain and/or Difficulty). I also take into consideration how active the cache owner appears to be on the site.

 

In general, I think I can say that utilization of the Health Score to take action has dramatically reduced the NA log types that I tend to see. The other aspect of the effect, is that the NA logs that I do see, tend to be less frustrated/aggressive sounding. Some of that may be just the auto text that is generated since the logging feature has been altered, but it still seems like a positive direction to me.

 

Thanks for candidly sharing that insight :)

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not seeing it working but likely because our local reviewers are slackers and we have way too many listings that need attention. :(

 

My last DNF and NM resulted in a CO being upset with me and the message center became personal insults, so yes we need a health score and yes we need reviewers that will use it. I'm tired of the local geocaching experience being "bring your own" cache to sign and leave it for the next person. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't noticed any change. The cachers in our area seem to be good about posting DNFs, NMs, and even NAs. And our reviewers have always been great about responding to NAs.

(OT--why does autocorrect always think I want Das when I type NAs?)

Share this post


Link to post

As a reviewer, yes. It's a tool to help identify caches that have been neglected and not reported. No action is automatically taken on the cache as a result of the health score. It's just one factor of many taken into consideration when caches are disabled or archived.

Perhaps this is a regional thing, as I haven't seen the reviewers here proactively disabling or archiving any caches other than ones that have been left disabled for too long by the CO. There are long-abandoned caches with no finds for several years and unacknowledged NMs that I'd have thought would be prime targets for this but they linger on and on until someone eventually logs an NA. So no, as a cache-seeker I've seen no obvious benefit here from the CHS.

Apart from your experience Jeff, I've not seen any evidence around here, at least not in this state (NSW). Seems like business as usual.

Share this post


Link to post

As a reviewer, yes. It's a tool to help identify caches that have been neglected and not reported. No action is automatically taken on the cache as a result of the health score. It's just one factor of many taken into consideration when caches are disabled or archived.

Perhaps this is a regional thing, as I haven't seen the reviewers here proactively disabling or archiving any caches other than ones that have been left disabled for too long by the CO. There are long-abandoned caches with no finds for several years and unacknowledged NMs that I'd have thought would be prime targets for this but they linger on and on until someone eventually logs an NA. So no, as a cache-seeker I've seen no obvious benefit here from the CHS.

Apart from your experience Jeff, I've not seen any evidence around here, at least not in this state (NSW). Seems like business as usual.

Yes, we don't seem to have too much trouble with bad caches and the old system of the community logging NMs and NAs works pretty well, so I guess the reviewers here don't see any need to become more involved.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess a better wording might've been are your reviewers now proactively pruning the deadwood that's led to an improvement in quality, which might reasonably imply the tool is being used. The reviewer's note when the cache is disabled warning the CO that archival is imminent if they don't respond might also give a hint I suppose. Anyway I'm not trying to make a big deal of it, I'm just curious if there's been a noticeable improvement in cache quality anywhere since the tool came into being.

1. Yes, I make frequent use of the Cache Health Score, though not in the way that my fellow reviewers have described. It is very valuable to me in locating and decisioning active caches with maintenance issues. I disabled dozens of caches today, partly in reliance on their Health Scores, and whether or not a reminder email had previously been sent automatically by the system. In other cases, based on the Health Score and the fact that no reminder email had been sent, I decided NOT to disable a half dozen caches that were on my list to look at.

 

2. Please note, the Cache Health Score has nothing to do with Temporarily Disabled Caches. Disabled pages are easy for reviewers to identify and look at and, by definition, the cache owner is already aware there is an issue with the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

The cachers in our area seem to be good about posting DNFs, NMs, and even NAs.

 

I have always played accordingly, but it has caused me way too many problems with local geocachers. :(

 

If it's up to us, and not reviewers to use the tools provided to them by HQ, then I don't see the geocache experience getting any better.

 

Maybe ownerless listings that show several TB's and it's really only a pill bottle and a wet log placed by a throwdowner is today's normal, but I believe our volunteers could do better. If not, it's time to hire some paid employees. :)

Edited by Manville Possum

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'm done giving feedback or answering questions here.

 

I wrote more than 75 cache logs as a reviewer today (a US holiday), and never left my house. Sorry if I'm not volunteering my time fast enough to catch every issue with every cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe ownerless listings that show several TB's and it's really only a pill bottle and a wet log placed by a throwdowner is today's normal, but I believe our volunteers could do better. If not, it's time to hire some paid employees. :)

 

I believe our caching community could do better by reporting such problems as needs archived. If you don't want to do your part, you have no right to complain. When I as a player come across a cache with a wet log that has obviously been ignored by it's owner, it will get a needs archived. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. But don't complain.

Share this post


Link to post

I NA'ed 6-8 caches yesterday while looking at ones within my home area that have multiple DNFS and sometimes multiple NMs. My observation continues to be that DNFs aren't triggering any unexpected behavior that would possibly cause an issue.

 

DNF, NM and NA as we always have. Whatever is hatemonger behind the scenes with them isn't triggering caches to inappropriately get archived as it's not triggering caches that should be archived.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe ownerless listings that show several TB's and it's really only a pill bottle and a wet log placed by a throwdowner is today's normal, but I believe our volunteers could do better. If not, it's time to hire some paid employees. :)

 

I believe our caching community could do better by reporting such problems as needs archived. If you don't want to do your part, you have no right to complain. When I as a player come across a cache with a wet log that has obviously been ignored by it's owner, it will get a needs archived. If you don't want to do that, that's fine. But don't complain.

 

If you will take time to actually review my complaint, it's the repercussions after logging my DNF's, NM's, and NA's I'm complaining about. Most locals just toss out a throwdown and move on. I'm the bad person that will post DNF, NM, and NA's which has resulted in CO's contacting me and calling me names telling me what an (edited) I am. You don't have to put up with that because of your reviewer status, but I do. I'm just a paying member. :(

Edited by Cascade Reviewer
Removed modified potty language

Share this post


Link to post

If you will take time to actually review my complaint, it's the repercussions after logging my DNF's, NM's, and NA's I'm complaining about. Most locals just toss out a throwdown and move on. I'm the bad person that will post DNF, NM, and NA's which has resulted in CO's contacting me and calling me names telling me what an (edited) I am. You don't have to put up with that because of your reviewer status, but I do. I'm just a paying member. :(

 

I understand your issue, but that doesn't change things. The best way to call attention to problems is to report them via a NA. You can always tell your reviewer directly if you have issues with the cache owners if you want to remain anonymous.

 

Short of reports, everything else is relying on the reviewer to make assumptions based on patterns of DNFs. I would hesitate as a reviewer to disable a cache simply because it had a string of DNFs. I have to look at patterns of finds and DNFs to assume that it might possibly be missing perhaps, maybe. Somebody that was there, and saw cache remains or saw a probable hiding spot based on clues but no cache, is in a much better position than me sitting at my desk at home analyzing logs.

 

That said, the health score is another tool in our chest to make these desk chair analysis better, but not perfect.

 

FYI - reviewer status doesn't matter much here. As a player, I report NA when appropriate and most didn't know until recently I was a reviewer. If there are a few jerks that give you grief, then ignore them or report anonymously.

Edited by Cascade Reviewer
Removed potty language in quote

Share this post


Link to post

If you will take time to actually review my complaint, it's the repercussions after logging my DNF's, NM's, and NA's I'm complaining about. Most locals just toss out a throwdown and move on. I'm the bad person that will post DNF, NM, and NA's which has resulted in CO's contacting me and calling me names telling me what an (edited) I am. You don't have to put up with that because of your reviewer status, but I do. I'm just a paying member. :(

 

I understand your issue, but that doesn't change things. The best way to call attention to problems is to report them via a NA. You can always tell your reviewer directly if you have issues with the cache owners if you want to remain anonymous.

 

Short of reports, everything else is relying on the reviewer to make assumptions based on patterns of DNFs. I would hesitate as a reviewer to disable a cache simply because it had a string of DNFs. I have to look at patterns of finds and DNFs to assume that it might possibly be missing perhaps, maybe. Somebody that was there, and saw cache remains or saw a probable hiding spot based on clues but no cache, is in a much better position than me sitting at my desk at home analyzing logs.

 

That said, the health score is another tool in our chest to make these desk chair analysis better, but not perfect.

 

FYI - reviewer status doesn't matter much here. As a player, I report NA when appropriate and most didn't know until recently I was a reviewer. If there are a few jerks that give you grief, then ignore them or report anonymously.

 

Here we go in the circle of post your NM, and NA's accordingly or report them to a reviewer anonymously. What I am suggesting is that reviewers make better use of the health score tool that you have. HQ thought that it would be useful, and I believe it would help the geocaching community if more reviewers actually used it.

 

Geocaching is in a bad decline in my area, and I believe the health score could help, so let's not make this an argument between us. :anibad:

Edited by Cascade Reviewer
Removed potty language in quote

Share this post


Link to post

In my area, I don't see any evidence that the Cache Health Score has changed anything. On the other hand, there has always been a consistent stream of temp disable/archived logs from our local reviewer for the past several years. I think that our reviewer has been doing their own version of a cache health score for a while.

 

As Keystone mentioned, he uses the fact that a reminder e-mail has/has not been sent as part of his decision making process. So, in that respect the reminder e-mail portion of the health score system does provide him (and indirectly us) with a benefit. Therefore, in his review area, it is changing things. Based on this, it appears that the Cache Health Score is improving the health of caches.

 

On a tangent, in my opinion the health score is helping to improve the health of caches. However, I do believe that there are other changes that would also have a positive impact. Such as: For CO's that haven't been active for over a year, require positive acknowledgement that the CO is still active. Require positive acknowledgement that a cache is still active. Require a minimum number of words in a log so reviewers (and cachers) can get a better idea of the health of a cache. Streamline the NM/NA process (I think the new logging process addresses this, but I haven't logged any caches recently). Produce a list of changes to cache pages and have them reviewed on a routine basis.

Share this post


Link to post

Here we go in the circle of post your NM, and NA's accordingly or report them to a reviewer anonymously. What I am suggesting is that reviewers make better use of the health score tool that you have. HQ thought that it would be useful, and I believe it would help the geocaching community if more reviewers actually used it.

From where I sit, I don't think GS would have invented the health score if NMs and NAs were being reliably posted by the geocachers in the field.

 

So I agree with Sapience Trek that the better solution is for seekers to do their part rather than blame reviewers for not taking up the slack by using the health score more. Unfortunately, I've come to see our position as a lost cause since in the last year or so a remarkable consensus has been reached that the responsibility for cache quality being entirely on GS and the reviewers. Most seekers, reviewers, developers, and even forum participants now appear to be taking that idea for granted.

 

Geocaching is in a bad decline in my area, and I believe the health score could help, so let's not make this an argument between us. :anibad:

I don't know about your area, but in areas I've cache where I got the impression geocaching was locally in decline, it seemed clear to me that doing better to identify and archive problem caches would simply mean fewer caches, not better caches, thus accelerating the decline instead of reversing it. Poor cache quality is merely a symptom, not the cause.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

Edited by Sapience Trek

Share this post


Link to post

No. The caches most in need of action are the ones most likely to be subject to the throw-down mentality, so this score nonsense doesn't impact them.

 

A very good point. As long as a cache is being found, even if the TB inventory is badly off and the actual cache owner has left the game, then there is not a problem.

 

So the health score could be a useful tool but from my understanding of this thread it is seldom used.

 

I recall in the past that a reviewer would temp disable caches with several DNF's, but that seems to be a thing of the past. As long as there are people tossing out throwdowns, the geocaching experience is not going to improve.

 

So some reviewers blame the players for not flagging caches that need attention when they actually have a tool to keep players out of the middle. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

I don't think anyone's ever said they were upset by it. Many have been confused, but for me it was mostly frustration at not being able to report what was a blatant false positive sent four days after a single DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache. In spite of all the might and may weasel words, it does imply that you need to do something in response, with the referenced Help Centre article implying further action if you don't. There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

I don't think anyone's ever said they were upset by it. Many have been confused, but for me it was mostly frustration at not being able to report what was a blatant false positive sent four days after a single DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache. In spite of all the might and may weasel words, it does imply that you need to do something in response, with the referenced Help Centre article implying further action if you don't. There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.

 

Log an OM explaining that there's nothing wrong with the cache and move on.

 

I'm pretty sure at least one poster has engaged in hand-wringing about how upsetting the emails are.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

I don't think anyone's ever said they were upset by it. Many have been confused, but for me it was mostly frustration at not being able to report what was a blatant false positive sent four days after a single DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache. In spite of all the might and may weasel words, it does imply that you need to do something in response, with the referenced Help Centre article implying further action if you don't. There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.

 

Log an OM explaining that there's nothing wrong with the cache and move on.

 

I'm pretty sure at least one poster has engaged in hand-wringing about how upsetting the emails are.

To me, probably thinking of it from an engineer's perspective, logging an OM is telling the system it got it right, there was a problem with the cache and the CO's fixed it. I wanted to raise a tech support docket saying not only did it get it wrong, it got it wrong to a degree that almost defies belief, but I couldn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

I don't think anyone's ever said they were upset by it. Many have been confused, but for me it was mostly frustration at not being able to report what was a blatant false positive sent four days after a single DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache. In spite of all the might and may weasel words, it does imply that you need to do something in response, with the referenced Help Centre article implying further action if you don't. There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.

 

Log an OM explaining that there's nothing wrong with the cache and move on.

 

I'm pretty sure at least one poster has engaged in hand-wringing about how upsetting the emails are.

To me, probably thinking of it from an engineer's perspective, logging an OM is telling the system it got it right, there was a problem with the cache and the CO's fixed it. I wanted to raise a tech support docket saying not only did it get it wrong, it got it wrong to a degree that almost defies belief, but I couldn't.

 

There's no need.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

Wow! :blink:

 

All the ranting we've seen on these forums about this *cough* 'terrible', 'upsetting' email.

 

As I said before - anybody who gets upset by receiving an email like this probably isn't cut out for cache ownership.

I don't think anyone's ever said they were upset by it. Many have been confused, but for me it was mostly frustration at not being able to report what was a blatant false positive sent four days after a single DNF on a seven-week-old D2/T5 cache. In spite of all the might and may weasel words, it does imply that you need to do something in response, with the referenced Help Centre article implying further action if you don't. There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.

 

Log an OM explaining that there's nothing wrong with the cache and move on.

 

I'm pretty sure at least one poster has engaged in hand-wringing about how upsetting the emails are.

To me, probably thinking of it from an engineer's perspective, logging an OM is telling the system it got it right, there was a problem with the cache and the CO's fixed it. I wanted to raise a tech support docket saying not only did it get it wrong, it got it wrong to a degree that almost defies belief, but I couldn't.

 

There's no need.

Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

But had I just ignored it, or logged an armchair OM as you're suggesting, the bug wouldn't have been brought to light, at least until the next time it flared up and someone else did what I did. As an engineer I want to be told about bugs in my software because they don't fix themselves, so there needs to be a feedback channel to allow that.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

But had I just ignored it, or logged an armchair OM as you're suggesting, the bug wouldn't have been brought to light, at least until the next time it flared up and someone else did what I did. As an engineer I want to be told about bugs in my software because they don't fix themselves, so there needs to be a feedback channel to allow that.

 

There is - it's called email.

 

Or you could bring it up in the forums from now until domesday - lest anybody ever forgets.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

But had I just ignored it, or logged an armchair OM as you're suggesting, the bug wouldn't have been brought to light, at least until the next time it flared up and someone else did what I did. As an engineer I want to be told about bugs in my software because they don't fix themselves, so there needs to be a feedback channel to allow that.

 

There is - it's called email.

 

Or you could bring it up in the forums from now until domesday - lest anybody ever forgets.

Of course I tried the support email but all I got from that was an explanation of how the Cache Health Score works and don't worry, when the reviewer looks at it I'm sure your cache won't be archived. That wasn't what I wanted; I wanted to report a bug so there was a chance it might be fixed. Dead end. But enough of that, all I'm saying is that there was, and still is, no obvious way to properly respond when the system gets it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

But had I just ignored it, or logged an armchair OM as you're suggesting, the bug wouldn't have been brought to light, at least until the next time it flared up and someone else did what I did. As an engineer I want to be told about bugs in my software because they don't fix themselves, so there needs to be a feedback channel to allow that.

 

There is - it's called email.

 

Or you could bring it up in the forums from now until domesday - lest anybody ever forgets.

Of course I tried the support email but all I got from that was an explanation of how the Cache Health Score works and don't worry, when the reviewer looks at it I'm sure your cache won't be archived. That wasn't what I wanted; I wanted to report a bug so there was a chance it might be fixed. Dead end. But enough of that, all I'm saying is that there was, and still is, no obvious way to properly respond when the system gets it wrong.

 

I refer you back to post #39

Share this post


Link to post
There was, and still is by the look of it, no way to actively report a false positive or even just to say to the system I'm here, I'm alive, the cache isn't abandoned or broken/missing - you either ignore it and hope for the best or do one of the three things it says to do.
Log an OM explaining that there's nothing wrong with the cache and move on.
If that is indeed the best way for a CO to respond when the system sends email based on a false positive, then it would be nice if the automated email included that in its list of suggested options.

Share this post


Link to post

Not standard and not required of the Reviewing Community at this time to take part in this "experiment". That is why the emails go out as a gentle reminder.

 

Unless the content of the emails has changed significantly from the last one I saw shared here, they are anything but "gentle." The implied requirement for action is no way resembles a "reminder."

 

The last one I got was to my dog's account below. It looks pretty gentle to me, and I'm pretty sure Barkley didn't feel hurt by this reminder:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ

 

 

No stated options for reporting false positives or defending a cache that is honestly difficult to find. Removes CO agency and discretion.

Share this post


Link to post
Ignoring software bugs doesn't make them go away, and in my case it surely must have been a bug - I can't imagine the developers intended it to ping a cache in those circumstances.

 

That one-off email that you had months ago must have had enough Internet exposure now that I'm surprised it hasn't become an Internet meme.

 

You've certainly not ignored the alleged software bug. In fact it's been confirmed here on the forums that TPTB are painfully aware of 'that' in incident.

 

In any case, an OM is perfectly adequate feedback.

But had I just ignored it, or logged an armchair OM as you're suggesting, the bug wouldn't have been brought to light, at least until the next time it flared up and someone else did what I did. As an engineer I want to be told about bugs in my software because they don't fix themselves, so there needs to be a feedback channel to allow that.

 

There is - it's called email.

 

Or you could bring it up in the forums from now until domesday - lest anybody ever forgets.

Of course I tried the support email but all I got from that was an explanation of how the Cache Health Score works and don't worry, when the reviewer looks at it I'm sure your cache won't be archived. That wasn't what I wanted; I wanted to report a bug so there was a chance it might be fixed. Dead end. But enough of that, all I'm saying is that there was, and still is, no obvious way to properly respond when the system gets it wrong.

 

I refer you back to post #39

 

i think that's the point. How many times will a CO have to execute that loop before they start to get really annoyed. IF the algorithm is sending out false positives, posting a armchair OM log isn't going to stop the algorithm from sending out another false positive if the health score hasn't improved. A few more DNF logs on a difficult hide and the circle will repeat. For a cache owner that likes creating challenging hides, they might have quite a few caches in that loop and eventually decide the annoyance isn't worth the effort they're putting in to create something more creative than that run-of-the mill cache that everyone else is placing.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×
×
  • Create New...