Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Doc_musketeers

How to deal with negligent CO

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Considering what we've heard from reviewers about the effectiveness of the CHS helping them deal with caches, yes, the false positives are indeed the exception to the norm.

How would anyone know?

If a CO receiving the email visits the cache and logs an OM even though the cache wasn't missing, the reviewer will never see it.

If, in the time between when the email went out and a reviewer looks through their list of low CHS caches, someone found the supposedly missing cache and thus raised its CHS above the threshold, it'll be removed from the list before the reviewer even sees it.

The only false positives the reviewer will see are the ones where the CO did nothing and nothing else has happened on the cache to improve its score, or if the CO contacted the reviewer directly. That might only be a small percentage of the actual false positives, but no-one will know because the system has no way for the CO to directly report a false positive to the CHS algorithm's masters.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If a CO receiving the email visits the cache and logs an OM even though the cache wasn't missing, the reviewer will never see it.

And that's exactly one of the main benefits the reviewers get from the CHS.  Whether it's true or false positive. The CO has dealt with it. And if the CO thinks it's wrong, we go back to them taking steps to inform of the concern via one of the many channels. See a previous comment.

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

The only false positives the reviewer will see are the ones where the CO did nothing and nothing else has happened on the cache to improve its score, or if the CO contacted the reviewer directly. That might only be a small percentage of the actual false positives, but no-one will know because the system has no way for the CO to directly report a false positive to the CHS algorithm's masters.

But in that case the CO did nothing. So the reviewer will see it. If the CO does nothing it's almost certain that the reviewer will suggest the CO do something.  Otherwise the CO could be considered inactive. It's the same thing that happens with rogue NM flags. Some COs forget they're still toggled on a cache. In time a reviewer might disable it merely so the CO will do what's necessary to clear the flag.

If the cache is in good shape, no harm no foul. If the cache is in bad shape and the CO couch-OM'd it, eventually it'll come back. And the reviewer will know the CO is up to some shady CO practices.  All of these situations are handled reasonably if everyone is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

If a CO receiving the email visits the cache and logs an OM even though the cache wasn't missing, the reviewer will never see it.

And that's exactly one of the main benefits the reviewers get from the CHS.  Whether it's true or false positive. The CO has dealt with it. And if the CO thinks it's wrong, we go back to them taking steps to inform of the concern via one of the many channels. See a previous comment.

Except the CO has made an unnecessary trip to attend to a cache that didn't need maintenance. Not a big deal if it's a T1.5 on the side of the road, but a different story if it's a full day hike through rugged terrain in the middle of an Australian summer. After that the CO might be dissuaded from hiding any more challenging caches. I know I have been. And the "many channels" aren't interested in reports of false positives, they just tell you that the CHS has been well received by the community and it's a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches.

Share this post


Link to post

If the CO visited the cache because they thought it needed visiting, then they did good. EVEN IF they find out on arrival that it doesn't need maintenance. That'll happen even without the nudge email. What if a cacher post a NM and the CO decides to go out to check on it to find that it doesn't need maintenance? Exactly the same situation.  Whether it's a NM or a CHS email, the CO has to decide how to respond.  No clear NM? Eventual reviewer action. No reset CHS? .. well, another email maybe. Or a reviewer request to post OM. Seriously, still not seeing an issue when the CO is reasonable.

If the CO doesn't think the cache needs visiting, they could couch-OM and hope it actually doesn't need visiting - Whether that was prompted by the CHS or a NM.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If the CO visited the cache because they thought it needed visiting, then they did good. EVEN IF they find out on arrival that it doesn't need maintenance. That'll happen even without the nudge email. What if a cacher post a NM and the CO decides to go out to check on it to find that it doesn't need maintenance? Exactly the same situation.  Whether it's a NM or a CHS email, the CO has to decide how to respond.  No clear NM? Eventual reviewer action. No reset CHS? .. well, another email maybe. Or a reviewer request to post OM. Seriously, still not seeing an issue when the CO is reasonable.

If the CO doesn't think the cache needs visiting, they could couch-OM and hope it actually doesn't need visiting - Whether that was prompted by the CHS or a NM.

For my T4 caches, I plan my routine visits for the winter when the trek out there is less likely to kill me. One of them in particular, if it got a CHS ping right now, when the temperature in the shade is 40C, I think I'd just archive it. It's unlikely to get an NM at this time of year either as no-one else would be silly enough to attempt it in this heat.

As for armchair logging an OM, nup, I'm not going to lower myself to that. Interesting that there's now another thread on that very subject, questioning whether the CHS is a contributor to an observed increase in that practice.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

As for armchair logging an OM, nup, I'm not going to lower myself to that.

Write a note describing the situation and your maintenance plan.

 

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I think I'd just archive it.

Then you shoud visit the site to remove the cache. Archiving does not eliminate your responsibility. It is better to write a note. :D

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, arisoft said:
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

As for armchair logging an OM, nup, I'm not going to lower myself to that.

Write a note describing the situation and your maintenance plan.

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I think I'd just archive it.

Then you shoud visit the site to remove the cache. Archiving does not eliminate your responsibility. It is better to write a note. :D

Can the CHS read notes and understand their content?

Archiving doesn't require immediate removal of the "missing" cache, and given where it is under a ledge at the end of a 250 metre steep climb and 500 metre rock-hop cum bush-bash through thick scrub, I don't think anyone would mind if I left the retrieval until the winter. It's a nice themed container so if the CHS ever declares it missing I'll certainly be retrieving it for reuse elsewhere. It just won't be a T4 in its reincarnation.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Can the CHS read notes and understand their content?

There is no reason to assume that CHS is incapable to find keywords from all kind of log entries. It has also powers to read archived logs in the case the CO is trying to hide the truth by deleting logs. You can only do what you can and CHS will do what it is programmed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Can the CHS read notes and understand their content?

There is no reason to assume that CHS is incapable to find keywords from all kind of log entries. It has also powers to read archived logs in the case the CO is trying to hide the truth by deleting logs. You can only do what you can and CHS will do what it is programmed to do.

It can't read DNF logs that say "there were muggles at GZ" and just blindly assumes the cache is missing.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It can't read DNF logs that say "there were muggles at GZ" and just blindly assumes the cache is missing.

I am absolutely sure that it can. We do not know, how deep it goes when analyzing the situation, but nothing can stop it from doing so if it wants to. It is just a statistical problem and can be computed by using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, dprovan said:

When the system is designed for the norm, what you'll get is the norm.

The problem with the CHS is that it's unreliable. When people point out problems, supporters say, "Well obviously that's an exception." That would be a perfectly reasonable argument if the CHS results were always filtered by a human who removes those obvious exceptions. But both the e-mail alerts and now this list of caches needing attention present the CHS directly to the cache owner with no hint that any given result might be an obvious exception. Furthermore, as niraD keeps pointing out, even when the CO does understand that the CHS result is an obvious exception, there's no way for him to report it or change the status other than by gaming the system with a random OM or some such.

In my opinion checking on a cache after 3 dnfs is fairly aggressive so in this case getting the norm would be a good thing.   Have you checked out the Tower cache mention in this thread?   In that case it looks like the CHS results were filtered out by a flesh and blood human (if they are human) reviewer.

That word "always" bothers me.  Nothing is for certain and there are exceptions to everything.   If your expecting a 100% mistake free system than your going to be disappointed. 

I'm having a hard time understand the "no way to report an issue" angle.   Somewhere on this forum I think a agreed with NiraD that some sort of "what do I do next" that included a way to communicate the reasons why you believe your cache is ok, be added to the e-mail.   That being said I have a good relationship with my reviewer and wouldn't hesitate to contact them about it directly.   All this is really unnecessary because after all the e-mail is just a friendly "heads up" and doesn't require the cache owner to do anything.   

If I had a cache that was being falsely flagged I'd discuss it with my reviewer and state my case based on the hide, the logs, my personal experience and my maintenance record and see if the rules could be slackened for that particular cache if for no other reason than to stop receiving "the e-mail"  .    There has to be a way this is already being done.   The Tower cache is a perfect example.  The only way that cache wouldn't have been flagged is if a reviewer, after looking it over, saw it for what it is.   

Is it possible that a tweaked CHS didn't flag that cache at all?    

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It can't read DNF logs that say "there were muggles at GZ" and just blindly assumes the cache is missing.

The CHS may not be able to discern between an actual search that resulted in the dnf and a dnf posted for other reasons,  but I'm sure a reviewer can.  From what I've seen it looks like the human element is defiantly in play here.   

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

We saw similar a lot when that pesky "Intro" app came out, COs "upping" their D/T simply to keep it away from the weekend-n-done kids. 

 - So, yeah, I can see the possibility that a few COs would game the system to beat that chs thing too.    :)

 

I have also seen the opposite - a CO deliberately setting a 1.5 D/T on a cache that was actually quite higher, just so it would show up for basic members with the app. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's a nice themed container so if the CHS ever declares it missing I'll certainly be retrieving it for reuse elsewhere.

The CHS never "declares anything missing", and no one anywhere has said that it does. Therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding of the CHS and its purpose.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

The problem with the CHS is that it's unreliable.

I haven't read through this entire thread since it shifted from the original question to another discussion about CHS, so I may have missed this, but what if any personal experience are you basing this one?  Have any of your caches been tagged by the algorithm?  If so, how recently?

On 12/18/2017 at 4:06 PM, barefootjeff said:
On 12/18/2017 at 3:50 PM, thebruce0 said:

If it happens to you, report your concerns.

It did. I tried. I was told I needed to maintain my cache as I'd agreed to do. The system doesn't provide a false-positive reporting mechanism, but even if it did, it still shouldn't be trying to infer anything from DNF logs on high D/T caches where DNFs are the expected outcome.

Jeff, is this based on your initial experience with the CHS email, or have you had one since then?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

All this is really unnecessary because after all the e-mail is just a friendly "heads up" and doesn't require the cache owner to do anything.  

"You and I remember Budapest very differently."
- Hawkeye, to Black Widow (The Avengers)

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, niraD said:

"You and I remember Budapest very differently."
- Hawkeye, to Black Widow (The Avengers)

Since my memory isn't what it use to be.....how do you remember it?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Since my memory isn't what it use to be.....how do you remember it?

I haven't received one myself yet, but the ones I saw quoted in the forums used very well-crafted language to tell the cache owners to either visit the cache or archive the cache. It didn't come across as "just a friendly 'heads up'" to me.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

I haven't received one myself yet, but the ones I saw quoted in the forums used very well-crafted language to tell the cache owners to either visit the cache or archive the cache. It didn't come across as "just a friendly 'heads up'" to me.

Here's one that's been used as an example.  

 

Your geocache,_____________ , 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.

Sorry but I don't see why this infuriates people so much. 

I think we both know the reason why "It's ok to just ignore this message"  is not given as an option.     

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

That word "always" bothers me.  Nothing is for certain and there are exceptions to everything.   If your expecting a 100% mistake free system than your going to be disappointed. 

It's funny you should mention this: from my point, the point here is that if you're expecting every cache you look for to be present and in good shape, you're going to be disappointed. I used the nothing's ever perfect argument as a reason to not bother with the CHS, yet here you are using it to argue for a flawed system to fix a system that I always thought was already good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, hzoi said:

I haven't read through this entire thread since it shifted from the original question to another discussion about CHS, so I may have missed this, but what if any personal experience are you basing this one?  Have any of your caches been tagged by the algorithm?  If so, how recently?

No one's disputing that the CHS isn't always accurate. I don't think I need personal experience to accept that, and I don't think any anecdotal evidence I might have from personal experience would be relevant, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's funny you should mention this: from my point, the point here is that if you're expecting every cache you look for to be present and in good shape, you're going to be disappointed. I used the nothing's ever perfect argument as a reason to not bother with the CHS, yet here you are using it to argue for a flawed system to fix a system that I always thought was already good enough.

I'm sure you hold that opinion because you don't know what GS knows.  You only see one side of the fence.  I can't  imagine they've decided to do this just to spite you.

Had to cost them some money to implement the CHS.  Must be a reason why they though they needed it.   

"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think we both know the reason why "It's ok to just ignore this message"  is not given as an option.     

How about an option for "If you think you have received this friendly reminder in error, then please let us know by [whatever]"?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm sure you hold that opinion because you don't know what GS knows.  You only see one side of the fence.  I can't  imagine they've decided to do this just to spite you.

Had to cost them some money to implement the CHS.  Must be a reason why they though they needed it.   

"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing."

Wow, that's a remarkably stupid philosophy, but I agree it seems to be the one GS is following.

I suppose it's possible GS knows something I don't -- although I don't know why they wouldn't tell us that information -- but their behavior is consistent with comments frequently made in the forums by non-insiders who consistently overrate the downside of caches that need maintenance and underrate the ability of a community to correct any pervasive problems with cache quality.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

How about an option for "If you think you have received this friendly reminder in error, then please let us know by [whatever]"?

I see no problem with that at all.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Wow, that's a remarkably stupid philosophy, but I agree it seems to be the one GS is following.

I suppose it's possible GS knows something I don't -- although I don't know why they wouldn't tell us that information -- but their behavior is consistent with comments frequently made in the forums by non-insiders who consistently overrate the downside of caches that need maintenance and underrate the ability of a community to correct any pervasive problems with cache quality.

Come on,  there's got to be something you don't know?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I see no problem with that at all.  

Me neither.

It seems though that people who are upset about the CHS email want to get rid of the CHS tool too. 

Tweaking the CHS email to include "If you think you have received this friendly reminder in error, then please let us know" would be useful, much better than "feel free to ignore this email".

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

How about an option for "If you think you have received this friendly reminder in error, then please let us know by [whatever]"?

And of course, now that the CHS is (or at least, can be) visible on the cache owner's dashboard, there needs to be a similar provision there. Otherwise, we'll end up with more armchair OM logs from cache owners trying to clear the CHS widget on their dashboards.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It seems though that people who are upset about the CHS email want to get rid of the CHS tool too.

I don't particularly want to get rid of it, I just don't like the way it relies solely on DNF logs to decide a cache might need maintenance, especially for higher D/T caches where there are so many other factors that can and do result in DNFs being logged. In that context, I'm also concerned at what other uses the CHS might be put to - I'm sure that, having invested so much time and effort into creating it, the GS accountants are keen to "leverage" that asset. We've already seen it used in the virtual rewards, perhaps it's already being used in other things we're not yet aware of.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I just don't like the way it relies solely on DNF logs to decide a cache might need maintenance

It doesn't rely "solely on DNF logs". It relies on a number of factors, of which multiple DNFs are one, while also being affected by additional factors.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It doesn't rely "solely on DNF logs". It relies on a number of factors, of which multiple DNFs are one, while also being affected by additional factors.

There have been numerous incidents reported where just one or a small number of DNFs have been the only apparent trigger. Can you provide evidence of these "other factors" you keep mentioning?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There have been numerous incidents reported where just one or a small number of DNFs have been the only apparent trigger. Can you provide evidence of these "other factors" you keep mentioning?

Can you provide evidence there are absolutely no other factors involved? No? So you don't know? That is what I've always said. Because we are not GS. But we know for a fact from the horse's mouth that a number of factors DO affect the score, strings of DNFs being one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Can you provide evidence there are absolutely no other factors involved? No? So you don't know? That is what I've always said. Because we are not GS. But we know for a fact from the horse's mouth that a number of factors DO affect the score, strings of DNFs being one of them.

The Help Centre says:

Quote

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

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

The ones reported in the forums had no NMs or NAs and were all fairly new caches so "not found in a long time" shouldn't come into it. They mostly had higher D/T ratings so that shouldn't be a factor. That only leaves DNFs, unless there are other factors hidden from the CO that are the primary trigger. But if they're hidden from the CO, how is he or she meant to correct the problem?

In my case, there was one DNF on a seven week old D2.5/T5 multi with a find five weeks prior to the DNF. No NMs, no NAs and I really doubt five weeks would be considered a "long time", especially on a T5 multi. I'd love to know what those other factors were that caused it to single out this cache, so I can fix it, but it seems that's a closely guarded secret.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:
7 hours ago, hzoi said:

I haven't read through this entire thread since it shifted from the original question to another discussion about CHS, so I may have missed this, but what if any personal experience are you basing this one?  Have any of your caches been tagged by the algorithm?  If so, how recently?

No one's disputing that the CHS isn't always accurate. I don't think I need personal experience to accept that, and I don't think any anecdotal evidence I might have from personal experience would be relevant, anyway.

Nor am I saying that you do.  I'm just trying to figure out what is continuing to spur this debate.  I know barefootjeff had a bad experience with its early iteration, and I don't blame him for still being unimpressed with the system as a result. 

But it would appear from all that Keystone has relayed over the months since that Groundspeak has been working to improve this, and I don't see that they're really getting any credit for it.  They are trying to implement a system to improve the experience for the average cacher, and the solution was to identify problem caches and spur cache owners to be more proactive (or at least less reactive or inactive) without tripling the workload of volunteer reviewers.  It didn't work well at first, as we know and has been discussed over and over.  

I think it's working better now, so I was trying to determine what evidence others had to the contrary.  I'm not seeing new evidence, only unchanged opinions, and I don't think that's helpful.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The Help Centre says:

Quote

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

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

The ones reported in the forums had no NMs or NAs and were all fairly new caches so "not found in a long time" shouldn't come into it. They mostly had higher D/T ratings so that shouldn't be a factor. That only leaves DNFs, unless there are other factors hidden from the CO that are the primary trigger. But if they're hidden from the CO, how is he or she meant to correct the problem?

Note the bold. What are listed are most commonly understood aspects of cache health that can be affected by general activity. That is not a detailed analysis of all factors that affect the algorithm's scoring. How does the CO correct the problem? Check the cache, make sure it's findable. Or, if you think it is, post an OM to confirm for the public, and this behind the scenes algorithm, that the cache is findable. That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Nor am I saying that you do.  I'm just trying to figure out what is continuing to spur this debate.  I know barefootjeff had a bad experience with its early iteration, and I don't blame him for still being unimpressed with the system as a result. 

But it would appear from all that Keystone has relayed over the months since that Groundspeak has been working to improve this, and I don't see that they're really getting any credit for it.  They are trying to implement a system to improve the experience for the average cacher, and the solution was to identify problem caches and spur cache owners to be more proactive (or at least less reactive or inactive) without tripling the workload of volunteer reviewers.  It didn't work well at first, as we know and has been discussed over and over.  

I think it's working better now, so I was trying to determine what evidence others had to the contrary.  I'm not seeing new evidence, only unchanged opinions, and I don't think that's helpful.

There were false positives similar to mine reported as recently as September or October I think. Keystone did say that further tweaks have been made since then, so hopefully there's been some improvement. Regardless, though, I'm still uncomfortable with it triggering on DNFs alone. I'd be much happier if it needed at least an ignored NM before doing its thing, and I said as much when it first came into being in mid 2015, long before my cache was pinged. It's also of greater concern now that it's being used for more than just sending an email.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I'm just trying to figure out what is continuing to spur this debate.

What's spurring the debate are people trying to improve the CHS. What's causing me to comment is that I don't see much point to improving it. I would have recommended that GS not show it to us. Let the reviewers have their secret tool, require them to take responsibility for how they use it, and that's the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Note the bold. What are listed are most commonly understood aspects of cache health that can be affected by general activity. That is not a detailed analysis of all factors that affect the algorithm's scoring. How does the CO correct the problem? Check the cache, make sure it's findable. Or, if you think it is, post an OM to confirm for the public, and this behind the scenes algorithm, that the cache is findable. That's it.

Doing a quick check on T4+ caches isn't always trivial. Some have seasonal access issues, be it snow, heat, monsoonal rains or whatever, or it might even entail a multi-day hike. Logging an armchair OM provides no additional information to prospective finders, other than I guess to say the CO is still alive and active, but wouldn't that be expected anyway on a cache that's only a couple of months old? And does logging that OM actually fix the underlying problem that triggered the low health score in the first place? If it wasn't just the DNF, it must have been something else, but what? It shouldn't be about just pacifying the CHS; if the intention is to improve the caching experience it has to be about actually fixing the problem that caused it to act, but that's hard to do if the underlying problem is kept hidden.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Can you provide evidence there are absolutely no other factors involved? No? So you don't know? That is what I've always said. Because we are not GS. But we know for a fact from the horse's mouth that a number of factors DO affect the score, strings of DNFs being one of them.

If the single DNF on my cache wasn't the only factor, I'd dearly love to know what was. The email said to see the logs for further information, but the only logs were the reviewer's Publish log, a WN from someone wondering if there were any takers, the FTF log a couple of days later which didn't mention any problems and in fact gave it an FP, then the DNF saying there were muggles setting up camp near GZ so she couldn't do a proper search. A week later, just after the CHS email, she went back, found it straight away and also awarded it an FP.

For the life of me, I can't figure out any other possible factors that might have caused this. If the reviewer had concerns, he would have told me rather than just clicking on Publish three hours after I submitted it. Did the CHS think my D/T rating was wrong? Did it have a map showing a road straight to GZ, negating my water-access-only T5? Did it think my D2.5 for the field puzzle was inappropriate? Did it find a spelling mistake on the cache page it thought should be corrected? Did it think GZ was on private property? If it was any of these sorts of things, how does logging an OM, armchair or otherwise, fix it? How does not telling me fix it?

No, unless you can come up with some other plausible factor beyond just that one DNF, and that would be fixed by either visiting the cache and logging an OM or doing so from the comfort of my armchair, I'll stand by my assertion that, in this case at least, it was only the DNF that triggered it.

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If I had a cache that was being falsely flagged I'd discuss it with my reviewer and state my case based on the hide, the logs, my personal experience and my maintenance record and see if the rules could be slackened for that particular cache if for no other reason than to stop receiving "the e-mail"  .    There has to be a way this is already being done.   The Tower cache is a perfect example.  The only way that cache wouldn't have been flagged is if a reviewer, after looking it over, saw it for what it is.   

Is it possible that a tweaked CHS didn't flag that cache at all? 

You can have all the conversations that you want with your reviewer but unless a reviewer has the ability to check a box on a cache listing to make it exempt from the CHS review or change the review criteria for a specific cache, it's not going stop "the email".   Although I (nor anyone else that isn't a lackey or a reviewer) don't know the specifics of the algorithm I would say with a extremely high amount of confidence that the algorithm is the same for every cache and there isn't a way for a review to create an exemption for a particular cache or change any of the variables used in the algorithm.  

Where a conversation with a reviewer could come into play is determining what, if any action a reviewer might take when a cache has generated "the e-mail" but it's not going to stop the email, nor any future email messages even if the reviewer tells you "I agree that this was a false positive, go ahead and post an OM log".  

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a reviewer if the general geocacher population found out that a reviewer could exempt a cache from CHS review?  They'd get pestered from geocachesr asking that their special cache be exempted.  

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, niraD said:

And of course, now that the CHS is (or at least, can be) visible on the cache owner's dashboard, there needs to be a similar provision there. Otherwise, we'll end up with more armchair OM logs from cache owners trying to clear the CHS widget on their dashboards.

That's news to me.   How can I view a cache score on my dashboard?

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Doing a quick check on T4+ caches isn't always trivial. Some have seasonal access issues, be it snow, heat, monsoonal rains or whatever, or it might even entail a multi-day hike. Logging an armchair OM provides no additional information to prospective finders, other than I guess to say the CO is still alive and active, but wouldn't that be expected anyway on a cache that's only a couple of months old? And does logging that OM actually fix the underlying problem that triggered the low health score in the first place? If it wasn't just the DNF, it must have been something else, but what? It shouldn't be about just pacifying the CHS; if the intention is to improve the caching experience it has to be about actually fixing the problem that caused it to act, but that's hard to do if the underlying problem is kept hidden.

I've had similar access problems with my caches.   Snow, Ice,  & Personal reasons have at one time or another prevented me from responding to issues as quickly as I'd like.   In every case I've communicated my situation in a note on the cache page explaining when I think I can fix the problem.   

I honestly believe that communication is the key.   I don't think GS expects you to drop everything and run out to preform maintenance on a cache when it's most inconvenient for you to do so.    I really think they just want to know you're aware of the issue and you have a game plan to fix it.  The friendly e-mail is part of being aware of the issue.   

In your case I think that after a bunch of dnfs on a difficult cache you posted a note saying something like  "It's a 4/4 for a reason.   If I get a couple of more dnfs I'll take a look",  there'd be no issues.    It's when dnf after dnf go unanswered , even on difficult caches,  one starts to wonder.   It's even more of a red flag on a 1/1 cache.

A simple note takes a lot of the guesswork out of the equation and It takes about 15 seconds to post one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

You can have all the conversations that you want with your reviewer but unless a reviewer has the ability to check a box on a cache listing to make it exempt from the CHS review or change the review criteria for a specific cache, it's not going stop "the email".   Although I (nor anyone else that isn't a lackey or a reviewer) don't know the specifics of the algorithm I would say with a extremely high amount of confidence that the algorithm is the same for every cache and there isn't a way for a review to create an exemption for a particular cache or change any of the variables used in the algorithm.  

Where a conversation with a reviewer could come into play is determining what, if any action a reviewer might take when a cache has generated "the e-mail" but it's not going to stop the email, nor any future email messages even if the reviewer tells you "I agree that this was a false positive, go ahead and post an OM log".  

Can you imagine what it would be like to be a reviewer if the general geocacher population found out that a reviewer could exempt a cache from CHS review?  They'd get pestered from geocachesr asking that their special cache be exempted.  

I don't believe the CHS is a "one size fits all"  thing.   Why?   Because of all people GS is aware of the wide variety of cache hides out there.  To develop a system that would treat them all the same without any way to adjust it to accommodate for this fact just doesn't make sense.

I choose to believe they're intelligent enough to have figured that out beforehand.

As far as an exemption goes why not?   It's not like a reviewer is overriding a rule or guideline.   At some level or another determining if a cache is missing or in need of maintenance is a judgement call.    Continuously having to "exempt" various caches must have been anticipated when the CHS was being developed.  Another reason why I think there's much more tweaking ability in the CHS than we think.

Dose each individual reviewer have the ability to tweak the CHS based on individual situations?    Seems like this would allow for a more cache specific fix.  

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't believe the CHS is a "one size fits all"  thing.   Why?   Because of all people GS is aware of the wide variety of cache hides out there.  To develop a system that would treat them all the same without any way to adjust it to accommodate for this fact just doesn't make sense.

Life would be so much easier for GS and reviewers if all caches were alike, so it does, in fact, make sense for them to develop a system that encourages that. On the one hand, I don't think they're consciously doing that, but, on the other hand, a major impact of the challenge cache overhaul was to forbid any significant innovation in challenges because it's easier to enforced fixed rules on well defined challenge types.

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Dose each individual reviewer have the ability to tweak the CHS based on individual situations?    Seems like this would allow for a more cache specific fix.  

No, the CHS is an entirely automated process.  Reviewers cannot change an individual cache's health score.  We can, and do, offer feedback to HQ about anomalies - contrary to false assertions made elsewhere in this thread.

The CHS will never be perfect.  It can be, and has been, tweaked to improve its overall performance to approach perfection without ever reaching it.  There will always be some false positives where the cache is in place and not in need of any owner maintenance.  It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read that string of DNF logs to learn that Cacher A didn't have the right equipment, Cacher B encountered muggles at Ground Zero, and Cacher C ran short on time and could not make it to the top of the cliff to retrieve the cache. 

There are also lots of false negatives in the CHS.  It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read and discard "finds" that are clearly DNF's that were mis-entered, to catch logs that weren't properly backdated ("found last year with X, Y and Z, logging now with my own new account"), etc.

Having looked at Cache Health Scores for literally thousands of caches since the feature was introduced, I am not seeing many examples of repeat email reminders for the same cache.  Any such example would be an outlier.  It is simple enough for the reviewer's human eye* to read the logs, check the owner's record, and make a decision to move on to the next cache without taking any action (disablement, archival).

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
18 hours ago, niraD said:

And of course, now that the CHS is (or at least, can be) visible on the cache owner's dashboard, there needs to be a similar provision there. Otherwise, we'll end up with more armchair OM logs from cache owners trying to clear the CHS widget on their dashboards.

That's news to me.   How can I view a cache score on my dashboard?

Here you go:

 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, niraD said:

Here you go:

 

Thanks NiraD.   It looks like I can only see it if one of my caches has a low health score and even then I doubt I'll be able to see what the actual score is. 

Share this post


Link to post

Individual cache health scores are only available to Lackeys and Reviewers.  The dashboard only shows caches that have fallen below the minimum threshold defined by HQ.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Individual cache health scores are only available to Lackeys and Reviewers.  The dashboard only shows caches that have fallen below the minimum threshold defined by HQ.

 

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

No, the CHS is an entirely automated process.  Reviewers cannot change an individual cache's health score.  We can, and do, offer feedback to HQ about anomalies - contrary to false assertions made elsewhere in this thread.

The CHS will never be perfect.  It can be, and has been, tweaked to improve its overall performance to approach perfection without ever reaching it.  There will always be some false positives where the cache is in place and not in need of any owner maintenance.  It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read that string of DNF logs to learn that Cacher A didn't have the right equipment, Cacher B encountered muggles at Ground Zero, and Cacher C ran short on time and could not make it to the top of the cliff to retrieve the cache. 

There are also lots of false negatives in the CHS.  It takes a reviewer's human eye* to read and discard "finds" that are clearly DNF's that were mis-entered, to catch logs that weren't properly backdated ("found last year with X, Y and Z, logging now with my own new account"), etc.

Having looked at Cache Health Scores for literally thousands of caches since the feature was introduced, I am not seeing many examples of repeat email reminders for the same cache.  Any such example would be an outlier.  It is simple enough for the reviewer's human eye* to read the logs, check the owner's record, and make a decision to move on to the next cache without taking any action (disablement, archival).

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

Eye get the point.   Thanks for the info.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't believe the CHS is a "one size fits all"  thing.   Why?   Because of all people GS is aware of the wide variety of cache hides out there.  To develop a system that would treat them all the same without any way to adjust it to accommodate for this fact just doesn't make sense.

I choose to believe they're intelligent enough to have figured that out beforehand.

As far as an exemption goes why not?   It's not like a reviewer is overriding a rule or guideline.   At some level or another determining if a cache is missing or in need of maintenance is a judgement call.    Continuously having to "exempt" various caches must have been anticipated when the CHS was being developed.  Another reason why I think there's much more tweaking ability in the CHS than we think.

Dose each individual reviewer have the ability to tweak the CHS based on individual situations?    Seems like this would allow for a more cache specific fix.  

I think you're making some assumptions about how the CHS was designed.  As Keystone pointed out, it's an entirely automated process.  It was not designed to be tweaked by reviewers, and the ability to exempt a cache from CHS review was not designed in intentionally.  Every cache is evaluated based on the same criteria.

Although a reviewer would not be overriding a guideline, just as they don't allow a cache to be exempt from a guidelines because the CO is responsible or even in the top 1% of finders,  allowing a reviewer to create an exemption for CHS review on a cache was never in the cards, nor should it be.   I'm pretty sure I have a good idea how Keystone or other reviewers would respond if they were told that they could exempt caches from the CHS or tweak the criteria for a specific cache, and the general geocaching public knew about it.

Any tweaking that happens with the CHS would be done by the developers at HQ, but any of those adjustments would apply to every cache in the same way.  If the algorithm were tweaked such that it would give a apply a multiplier for  a DNF based on the number of finds by the person posting the DNF, then that tweak would be used for every cache being evaluated.   

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...