Jump to content

Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs


fizzymagic

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, niraD said:

Apparently the volunteer reviewers are advising cache owners to deal with "false positives" from the CHS system by posting "armchair OM logs":

 

What's wrong with that?   If the owners explanation is acceptable than a reviewer will let the OM log stand.  I'd almost bet the mere fact the owner posted an OM log would probably get the cache taken off any list.   Seems to me like this approach saves a step or two.     

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What's wrong with that?   If the owners explanation is acceptable than a reviewer will let the OM log stand.  I'd almost bet the mere fact the owner posted an OM log would probably get the cache taken off any list.   Seems to me like this approach saves a step or two.     

I didn't think niraD thought there was anything wrong with that. He just seems to be bringing it everyone's attention. But, me, I don't like it. I'd rather see them encouraging people to report false positives directly to GS where the input can be applied to improving the CHS by the people maintaining it. The OM has a different function and is indirect. for this suggestion to do anything to improve the CHS, several things have to happen.

First the reviewer has to see the OM. As far as I know, OMs are not sent to reviewers, so he'd have to go look for it, and there's no particular reason to think he would. After all, as you say, the OM itself would probably reduce the CHS so the cache will no longer be on the reviewer's radar. And, indeed, that's one of the problems I have with this, and I suspect is why niraD brought it up: posting an OM tends to sweep the CHS fail under the rug. It directly treats the symptom and makes it less important to treat the disease. I go so far as to wonder if that's the reason it's being advocated, not because anyone things it will help improve the CHS.

Second, the reviewer has to recognize it as a false positive report. The actual purpose of an OM is something different. When I post an OM, I know everyone will be reading it. I focus on what other geocachers need to know about the maintenance I performed. I would never report it in terms of "A mistaken CHS alert about this cache was sent to me, and this is what was wrong about it." Not only does that subvert what OMs are for, it puts me in a position of posting an OM that is quite literally a public complaint about GS which -- putting the official procedural purpose -- is something I'd never want to put in my cache's log.

Lastly, the reviewer would have to forward the information to GS. Why add that burden to begin with? There would be no point for the reviewer to get involved other than to fill this new role as false positive report forwarder.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I didn't think niraD thought there was anything wrong with that. He just seems to be bringing it everyone's attention. But, me, I don't like it. I'd rather see them encouraging people to report false positives directly to GS where the input can be applied to improving the CHS by the people maintaining it. The OM has a different function and is indirect. for this suggestion to do anything to improve the CHS, several things have to happen.

First the reviewer has to see the OM. As far as I know, OMs are not sent to reviewers, so he'd have to go look for it, and there's no particular reason to think he would. After all, as you say, the OM itself would probably reduce the CHS so the cache will no longer be on the reviewer's radar. And, indeed, that's one of the problems I have with this, and I suspect is why niraD brought it up: posting an OM tends to sweep the CHS fail under the rug. It directly treats the symptom and makes it less important to treat the disease. I go so far as to wonder if that's the reason it's being advocated, not because anyone things it will help improve the CHS.

Second, the reviewer has to recognize it as a false positive report. The actual purpose of an OM is something different. When I post an OM, I know everyone will be reading it. I focus on what other geocachers need to know about the maintenance I performed. I would never report it in terms of "A mistaken CHS alert about this cache was sent to me, and this is what was wrong about it." Not only does that subvert what OMs are for, it puts me in a position of posting an OM that is quite literally a public complaint about GS which -- putting the official procedural purpose -- is something I'd never want to put in my cache's log.

Lastly, the reviewer would have to forward the information to GS. Why add that burden to begin with? There would be no point for the reviewer to get involved other than to fill this new role as false positive report forwarder.

Thinking back on the conversations we've had regarding the CHS, I see their comments differently.  If I'm reading it wrong and they are in favor of the idea than I apologize.

If the statement regarding absentee OML's is true than that tells me that the CHS has limits and can only be tweaked so much.   This sounds like GS extending an olive branch to make false positives easier for some to deal with.

From all we've heard from those that use the CHS,  it helps.  Lets keep in mind that false OML's are nothing new.   It's not a new phenomenon created by the CHS.  They may have increased since the CHS was implemented but that tells me that bad cache owners are getting desperate.    

I'd guess that once a cache is identified it remains on the reviewers radar until the issue is resolved, one way or the other.   I'm sure some false positives are dismissed by a reviewer outright.   Others aren't so cut and dry.  They may require the owners attention either by fixing the problem or stating why they believe maintenance isn't necessary.  I believe GS is looking for some sign of life here.   If you respond at all I'm sure most reviewers will extend the maintenance clock. 

These are only situations where you believe there's been a false positive.  If the reviewer agrees and an OML has already been posted, than nothing more needs to be done.  Again it sounds to me like an olive branch. 

How reviewers keep track of all these scenarios is beyond me.  If we had a chance to sit in the reviewers chair for a couple of weeks I think we'd all be singing a different tune.  

I agree that suggesting false OML's isn't what I'd do to resolve a false positive.  I'm sure there is a better way.       

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This sounds like GS extending an olive branch to make false positives easier for some to deal with.

This makes me recognize an interesting distinction. Phrased as "olive branch", you're seeing false positives as a perfectly acceptable event, and everyone should just make peace with them. I see false positives as mistakes, and GS should be apologizing for them, however understandable the mistakes are and however quickly we're all willing to forgive them. niraD's focus on the CHS recently has been on improving it, not just making peace with GS over it.

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

From all we've heard from those that use the CHS,  it helps.

Well of course the users of the CHS think it helps. The false positives don't impact the people using it to identify "bad" caches. They continue to identify "bad" caches and don't have to even think about the fact that the definition of "bad" they're working with is whatever the CHS says bad is.

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I'd guess that once a cache is identified it remains on the reviewers radar until the issue is resolved, one way or the other.

Well, we've been told basically the opposite: the CHS triggers the automatic warning but doesn't change the status of the cache, so if the CHS for that cache is improved by an OM before the reviewer gets around to sweeping his area, this cache will no longer show up. So the advise I put in the OM about why the CHS was faulty will never be seen.

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

How reviewers keep track of all these scenarios is beyond me.  If we had a chance to sit in the reviewers chair for a couple of weeks I think we'd all be singing a different tune. 

This is really the most fundamental level of our disagreement. My opinion of CHS is driven by the fact that using it puts a huge burden on the reviewers. I didn't understand how reviewers could do what they did even before this never-a-bad cache fad swept the sport and tripled the amount of work they have to do. I don't think they should have to carry this burden to begin with. And time after time, things like this come up that make it clear that it doesn't even make practical sense for the reviewers to be in the middle of so much of this stuff.

Link to comment

The impression I got from the session on Sunday (and I stress this is only an impression - I wish now I'd recorded it) is that the action of the CHS sending out its email puts the cache on a reviewer's watchlist, so they can see later on which caches were pinged and what the CO response was if any, and from that decide if any follow-up action needs to be taken. So if that's the case, the reviewers would see the OM. I also got the impression that some of our reviewers were more keen on the CHS than others. They also said that ignoring the CHS email isn't a good idea as that would suggest to them that the cache is abandoned.

As long as the CHS relies on counting DNFs as its way of determining cache health, there'll always be false positives and no amount of tweaking will fix that. My attempt sixteen months ago at reporting a false positive to HQ just resulted in them reminding me that it's a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches, so I don't think HQ wants such reports from COs. And since it now appears that a subsquent find following a DNF doesn't satisfy the CHS algorithm that the cache isn't missing, logging an OM is about all the CO has left to do when they know the cache is fine, other than disable or archive it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, dprovan said:

This makes me recognize an interesting distinction. Phrased as "olive branch", you're seeing false positives as a perfectly acceptable event, and everyone should just make peace with them. I see false positives as mistakes, and GS should be apologizing for them, however understandable the mistakes are and however quickly we're all willing to forgive them. niraD's focus on the CHS recently has been on improving it, not just making peace with GS over it.

Well of course the users of the CHS think it helps. The false positives don't impact the people using it to identify "bad" caches. They continue to identify "bad" caches and don't have to even think about the fact that the definition of "bad" they're working with is whatever the CHS says bad is.

Well, we've been told basically the opposite: the CHS triggers the automatic warning but doesn't change the status of the cache, so if the CHS for that cache is improved by an OM before the reviewer gets around to sweeping his area, this cache will no longer show up. So the advise I put in the OM about why the CHS was faulty will never be seen.

This is really the most fundamental level of our disagreement. My opinion of CHS is driven by the fact that using it puts a huge burden on the reviewers. I didn't understand how reviewers could do what they did even before this never-a-bad cache fad swept the sport and tripled the amount of work they have to do. I don't think they should have to carry this burden to begin with. And time after time, things like this come up that make it clear that it doesn't even make practical sense for the reviewers to be in the middle of so much of this stuff.

Yes I see the false positives as exactly that.  No system can be flawless but that doesn't mean, as a whole,  it doesn't provide a valuable service.   Every aspect of Geocaching as flaws.  It's not necessarily the rules and guidelines that are flawed but how people apply them (or choose not to).   I have no problem trying to improve the CHS.  What I doo have a problem with is those that would denude the basic idea of the CHS because of their own personal situation regardless of the overall positive impact it may have on the health of the game.

I've yet to hear from any reviewer that the CHS is a burden especially when, from what I've heard, the use of it is entirely optional.  To the contrary, every reviewer, that has chimed in on the CHS,  indicates that it's a valuable tool.       

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The impression I got from the session on Sunday (and I stress this is only an impression - I wish now I'd recorded it) is that the action of the CHS sending out its email puts the cache on a reviewer's watchlist, so they can see later on which caches were pinged and what the CO response was if any, and from that decide if any follow-up action needs to be taken. So if that's the case, the reviewers would see the OM. I also got the impression that some of our reviewers were more keen on the CHS than others. They also said that ignoring the CHS email isn't a good idea as that would suggest to them that the cache is abandoned.

As long as the CHS relies on counting DNFs as its way of determining cache health, there'll always be false positives and no amount of tweaking will fix that. My attempt sixteen months ago at reporting a false positive to HQ just resulted in them reminding me that it's a CO's responsibility to maintain their caches, so I don't think HQ wants such reports from COs. And since it now appears that a subsquent find following a DNF doesn't satisfy the CHS algorithm that the cache isn't missing, logging an OM is about all the CO has left to do when they know the cache is fine, other than disable or archive it.

I still think that dnfs need to be factored into the overall health of a cache but I don't understand why a find after a dnf would not satisfy the CHS?     Let's face it,  a find rather than a fraudulent OML is a much better indicator isn't it?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I still think that dnfs need to be factored into the overall health of a cache but I don't understand why a find after a dnf would not satisfy the CHS?     Let's face it,  a find rather than a fraudulent OML is a much better indicator isn't it?

Unless it's a fraudulent find.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I still think that dnfs need to be factored into the overall health of a cache but I don't understand why a find after a dnf would not satisfy the CHS?     Let's face it,  a find rather than a fraudulent OML is a much better indicator isn't it?

Yes, as I said in the other thread where this was reported, it strikes me as truly bizarre that the CHS thinks it's more likely that the subsequent find was a thowdown or fake log than the possibility that the DNF was for reasons other than a missing cache.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, as I said in the other thread where this was reported, it strikes me as truly bizarre that the CHS thinks it's more likely that the subsequent find was a thowdown or fake log than the possibility that the DNF was for reasons other than a missing cache.

Unless they know something we don't I'd have to believe that the vast majority of finds at any given time are legit.

I must admit that logic frightens me a bit.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Some fraction.

But is it a bigger fraction than the fraction of DNFs that aren't due to a missing cache? You must have a lot of fraudulent finders where you are.

What now? :blink:

What's with all the crystal ball questions?

Well, of all the DNFs I've logged, only about a third have turned out to be due to a missing cache, the rest were my own inability to find the cache. On my own hides, only 2 out of 50 something DNFs were due to a cache problem (and both on the same cache at different times and with different problems!). It's probably safe to generalise that at least half the DNFs logged aren't due to missing or inaccessible caches, so are you saying the likelihood of a fraudulent find is greater than that? That more than half the find logs across the board are fraudulent? That's what the CHS must be assuming if it assumes any find following a DNF is fraudulent.

Link to comment
Just now, barefootjeff said:

Well, of all the DNFs I've logged, only about a third have turned out to be due to a missing cache, the rest were my own inability to find the cache. On my own hides, only 2 out of 50 something DNFs were due to a cache problem (and both on the same cache at different times and with different problems!). It's probably safe to generalise that at least half the DNFs logged aren't due to missing or inaccessible caches, so are you saying the likelihood of a fraudulent find is greater than that? That more than half the find logs across the board are fraudulent? That's what the CHS must be assuming if it assumes any find following a DNF is fraudulent.

 

Here's what I said.

 

12 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I still think that dnfs need to be factored into the overall health of a cache but I don't understand why a find after a dnf would not satisfy the CHS?     Let's face it,  a find rather than a fraudulent OML is a much better indicator isn't it?

Unless it's a fraudulent find.

 

Was I right or was I wrong?

Is a fraudulent find a much better indicator of anything than a fraudulent OML?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Irrelevant.

Return to your original argument.

 

relevant in the fact that the % of fake finds on any given day isn't even worth factoring into how the CHS works,  which is why I don't understand why a find wouldn't cancel out the dnfs.  

Already been argued previously.

Why should it?

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well, of all the DNFs I've logged, only about a third have turned out to be due to a missing cache, the rest were my own inability to find the cache. On my own hides, only 2 out of 50 something DNFs were due to a cache problem (and both on the same cache at different times and with different problems!). It's probably safe to generalise that at least half the DNFs logged aren't due to missing or inaccessible caches, so are you saying the likelihood of a fraudulent find is greater than that? That more than half the find logs across the board are fraudulent? That's what the CHS must be assuming if it assumes any find following a DNF is fraudulent.

Actually I think your 1/3 of dnfs are due to a missing cache is probably more accurate.   I think we all agree that dnfs should't hold the weight they seem to but I still think they need to be factored in.    

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Already been argued previously.

Why should it?

As I see it, about the only problem a DNF can indicate is a missing cache, I mean people don't log DNFs if the logbook is wet or full, so a subsequent find ought to be evidence enough that the cache isn't missing, unless you assume that most finds are fraudulent.

Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Here's what I said.

 

 

Was I right or was I wrong?

Is a fraudulent find a much better indicator of anything than a fraudulent OML?

A fraudulent OML is much worse. 

How? If the reviewer has instructed that's what should happen as a means of flagging false positives?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

As I see it, about the only problem a DNF can indicate is a missing cache, I mean people don't log DNFs if the logbook is wet or full, so a subsequent find ought to be evidence enough that the cache isn't missing, unless you assume that most finds are fraudulent.

I can see this thread is going to spiral out of control too.

The value of one log is the value of one log. There's no need to assume anything on a global scale or even a majority scale.

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Already been argued previously.

Why should it?

Although I'm quite sure you already know the answer to this one I'll jump through the hoops for you.   If you assume that 2/3s of all dnfs are posted because the cacher simply couldn't find the cache than 2/3s of all those caches are fine.  If you can believe that most players are honest and posting logs based on their experience than a find should indicate that the previous number of dnfs were just that,  and the cache is still in place and in good shape.

Why would you base your entire thought process on the basis of a fraudulent anything?      

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
Just now, Team Microdot said:

I can see this thread is going to spiral out of control too.

The value of one log is the value of one log. There's no need to assume anything on a global scale or even a majority scale.

 

But the CHS must be making such assumptions since all it can do is count them, not read their context. It presumably gives some weight to a DNF indicating a missing cache and some other weight to a find log indicating a cache isn't missing. What I don't understand is why the find's weighting is lower than the DNFs.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I see it, about the only problem a DNF can indicate is a missing cache,

Ignoring the fact the in the strictest sense it just means that the logger didn't find the cache.

It could indicate that the cache is right where it's meant to be but it's of a type the seeker hasn't seen before so they didn't realise it was the cache. There have been several times where I've had a cache in my hand without even realising it.

It could be that the last finder moved it.

It could be that the last finder hid / camouflaged it differently.

So that's at least three instances where a DNF doesn't indicate a missing cache.

I expect there are dozens more examples.

Link to comment
Just now, Team Microdot said:

Ignoring the fact the in the strictest sense it just means that the logger didn't find the cache.

It could indicate that the cache is right where it's meant to be but it's of a type the seeker hasn't seen before so they didn't realise it was the cache. There have been several times where I've had a cache in my hand without even realising it.

It could be that the last finder moved it.

It could be that the last finder hid / camouflaged it differently.

So that's at least three instances where a DNF doesn't indicate a missing cache.

I expect there are dozens more examples.

But a searcher not recognising the cache when they see it isn't a problem with the cache. I'm talking about what cache problems a DNF might possibly indicate, and yes, okay, a moved cache could be considered a problem depending on how far it's moved (if it's only moved half a metre it should still be findable).

Link to comment
Just now, Team Microdot said:

I'd rather you didn't - lest this become another pointless thread which reaches no conclusion due largely to claims made on flawed logic.

It's odd that this seems to happen when you chime in.   Barefootjeff and I were actually having an informative conversation up to this point.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But the CHS must be making such assumptions since all it can do is count them, not read their context. It presumably gives some weight to a DNF indicating a missing cache and some other weight to a find log indicating a cache isn't missing. What I don't understand is why the find's weighting is lower than the DNFs.

What's more baffling is why GS would take that view.   If you not going to allow finds to cancel out dnfs than doesn't that make more work for reviewers?   They have to continue monitoring caches that are most likely fine.   

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

What's more baffling is why GS would take that view.   If you not going to allow finds to cancel out dnfs than doesn't that make more work for reviewers?   They have to continue monitoring cache that are most likely fine.   

Yeah, as I said, it's bizarre. I've now seen two separate instances reported where the CHS email has gone out well after the find was logged, so it's not just a one-off.

Getting back on topic, I'm wondering if, in my case from last year, if I'd logged an armchair OM (as the reviewers now suggest in that scenario), saying I'd contacted the one (and only) DNFer and confirmed she was looking in the wrong place, and that she then went back six days later, found it and sent me photos of the cache in place and its logbook, would that really be considered a fraudulent OM just because I didn't paddle out through the turbulent waters to personally check it?

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I'd rather you didn't - lest this become another pointless thread which reaches no conclusion due largely to claims made on flawed logic.

It's odd that this seems to happen when you chime in.   Barefootjeff and I were actually having an informative conversation up to this point.

So I had a read back through the the last page thread to see how informative it was.

After reading these two parts I'm left feeling confused rather than informed:

 

23 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
On 02/04/2018 at 11:03 PM, niraD said:

Apparently the volunteer reviewers are advising cache owners to deal with "false positives" from the CHS system by posting "armchair OM logs":

 

What's wrong with that?   If the owners explanation is acceptable than a reviewer will let the OM log stand.  I'd almost bet the mere fact the owner posted an OM log would probably get the cache taken off any list.   Seems to me like this approach saves a step or two.     

 

20 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

A fraudulent OML is much worse. 

 

So is a fraudulent OM log a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yeah, as I said, it's bizarre. I've now seen two separate instances reported where the CHS email has gone out well after the find was logged, so it's not just a one-off.

Getting back on topic, I'm wondering if, in my case from last year, if I'd logged an armchair OM (as the reviewers now suggest in that scenario), saying I'd contacted the one (and only) DNFer and confirmed she was looking in the wrong place, and that she then went back six days later, found it and sent me photos of the cache in place and its logbook, would that really be considered a fraudulent OM just because I didn't paddle out through the turbulent waters to personally check it?

If you were a reviewer what would you do?   Me, I'd agree with your assessment and take steps to remove the cache from any list.   Unfortunately your situation happened to be in that grey area created by the implementation of the CHS.    In your case do you like the idea of being able to post a.....I hate to use the word fraudulent, OML as a way to help deflect multiple dnfs on high T/D caches?   

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So I had a read back through the the last page thread to see how informative it was.

After reading these two parts I'm left feeling confused rather than informed:

 

 

 

So is a fraudulent OM log a good thing or a bad thing?

 

Over all a bad thing but In Barefootjeff's case (and others with high D/T caches that may get a lot of false dnfs)  it could have been a good thing.   I think GS should re-think their position on allowing fraudulent OML and come up with another reporting mechanism which would accomplish the same thing.  

Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

Over all a bad thing but In Barefootjeff's case (and others with high D/T caches that may get a lot of false dnfs)  it could have been a good thing.   I think GS should re-think their position on allowing fraudulent OML and come up with another reporting mechanism which would accomplish the same thing.  

That seems like a lot of work when there's an existing mechanism which does the job.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

If you were a reviewer what would you do?   Me, I'd agree with your assessment and take steps to remove the cache from any list.   Unfortunately your situation happened to be in that grey area created by the implementation of the CHS.    In your case do you like the idea of being able to post a.....I hate to use the word fraudulent, OML as a way to help deflect multiple dnfs on high T/D caches?   

In a case like that where the evidence is really irrefutable (photos from the finder showing the cache right where I'd put it and the logbook including the signature of the finder prior to her DNF), I'd sleep comfortably logging an armchair OM explaining all that. In hindsight I would've preferred that option rather than going through all the hassle of trying to report the blatant false positive to HQ.

And if I was a reviewer (heaven forbid that ever happening!) I'm sure I'd be happy accepting an explanation like that from someone who's copped a false positive on a cache that's not easy to physically visit at short notice.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In a case like that where the evidence is really irrefutable (photos from the finder showing the cache right where I'd put it and the logbook including the signature of the finder prior to her DNF), I'd sleep comfortably logging an armchair OM explaining all that. In hindsight I would've preferred that option rather than going through all the hassle of trying to report the blatant false positive to HQ.

And if I was a reviewer (heaven forbid that ever happening!) I'm sure I'd be happy accepting an explanation like that from someone who's copped a false positive on a cache that's not easy to physically visit at short notice.

I think it's important for reviewers to use their judgment and continue to use the CHS as a tool to help them.   I haven't looked at your profile but I get the impression your a good cache owner.   I have to believe that your reviewer would see the same.   I say this because I don't necessarily  believe you should need to have "irrefutable" evidence if your cache owner history is a good one.   This shouldn't be about punishing good cache owners.    There's nothing wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who's earned it.  

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

I think it's important for reviewers to use there judgment and continue to use the CHS as a tool to help them.   I haven't looked at your profile but I get the impression your a good cache owner.   I have to believe that your reviewer would see the same.   I say this because I don't necessarily  believe you should need to have "irrefutable" evidence if your cache owner history is a good one.   This shouldn't be about punishing good cache owners.    There's nothing wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who's earned it.  

The impression I got from the reviewers on Sunday was that they really just want to see that the CO is still active and across the issue/non-issue that the CHS has pinged. Out-and-out fraudulent COs are thankfully pretty rare here.

As for me, well I do have one disabled cache at the moment that's had a physical waypoint muggled, which I discovered yesterday when doing a routine visit, but plan to have a replacement out there after the school holidays in a couple of weeks. Otherwise I think that CHS ping is my only blemish.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The impression I got from the reviewers on Sunday was that they really just want to see that the CO is still active and across the issue/non-issue that the CHS has pinged. Out-and-out fraudulent COs are thankfully pretty rare here.

As for me, well I do have one disabled cache at the moment that's had a physical waypoint muggled, which I discovered yesterday when doing a routine visit, but plan to have a replacement out there after the school holidays in a couple of weeks. Otherwise I think that CHS ping is my only blemish.

I too have a multi disabled right now.   I disabled it after reading a found log.   I don't consider it a blemish at all even though it's been disabled for about 2 months now. The key is to keep the information flowing with your reviewer.  I should be able to get around to it soon as the snow is now almost gone. 

 

Ahh,  you too do routine visits.   Nothing wrong with being proactive.   

Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

I too have a multi disabled right now.   I disabled it after reading a found log.   I don't consider it a blemish at all even though it's been disabled for about 2 months now. The key is to keep the information flowing with your reviewer.  I should be able to get around to it soon as the snow is now almost gone. 

 

Ahh,  you too do routine visits.   Nothing wrong with being proactive.   

Ah, the benefit of living in this part of the world where the water's always liquid so I don't have to worry about snow and ice :).

I generally visit my more urban hides after each school holidays, as that's when they're most likely to attract little fingers poking around in places they shouldn't. Patonga's Grotto gets a visit after each find as people can't seem to put it back properly, but it's only a ten minute drive from home. The more remote ones (Upper Mullet and The Great Train Heist in particular) I only want to visit in winter when it's cool enough for me to do the hike without keeling over (and the snakes are hibernating), but they're remote enough that muggling's very unlikely and, like most of my hides, are tucked away in dry rock cavities so they won't get wet or suffer from direct sunlight.

I also keep a Word document listing all my hides sorted by the date of my last visit, so I can see at a glance which ones might be due for a visit. Currently the oldest on that list is Red Gum Cascade, which I last visited just on a year ago, so that's in my sights for the coming weeks (again it's a pretty isolated bush-bash to reach and tucked in under a rock overhang out of the weather, and the last log was a find in February).

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Ah, the benefit of living in this part of the world where the water's always liquid so I don't have to worry about snow and ice :).

I generally visit my more urban hides after each school holidays, as that's when they're most likely to attract little fingers poking around in places they shouldn't. Patonga's Grotto gets a visit after each find as people can't seem to put it back properly, but it's only a ten minute drive from home. The more remote ones (Upper Mullet and The Great Train Heist in particular) I only want to visit in winter when it's cool enough for me to do the hike without keeling over (and the snakes are hibernating), but they're remote enough that muggling's very unlikely and, like most of my hides, are tucked away in dry rock cavities so they won't get wet or suffer from direct sunlight.

I also keep a Word document listing all my hides sorted by the date of my last visit, so I can see at a glance which ones might be due for a visit. Currently the oldest on that list is Red Gum Cascade, which I last visited just on a year ago, so that's in my sights for the coming weeks (again it's a pretty isolated bush-bash to reach and tucked in under a rock overhang out of the weather, and the last log was a find in February).

It's a sound maintenance plan and one I'd like to see other cache owners adopt.  I try to visit mine at least twice a year.  A mandatory maintenance visit can counts as one.  I do this for two reasons.  First I like to check on the caches in spring and fall.  Spring to fix what mother nature inevitably damaged and fall to try and winterize them for the coming season.  Second I actually like the areas I have caches in.   I like walking those trails so for me maintenance is enjoyable and not a choir at all.

 l realize (thinking about my own situation) that all caches can't be routinely visited on the spur of the moment for a verity of reasons.   I think that's why some sort of reporting process for possible false positives is necessary and I'm not sure fake OML's is the answer.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Over all a bad thing but In Barefootjeff's case (and others with high D/T caches that may get a lot of false dnfs)  it could have been a good thing.   I think GS should re-think their position on allowing fraudulent OML and come up with another reporting mechanism which would accomplish the same thing.  

That seems like a lot of work when there's an existing mechanism which does the job.

I think that depends on what you consider "the job" to be.

If the job is merely to stop the "false positive" CHS nag emails, then yes, the armchair OM logs do the job.

If the job is to inform the team responsible for the CHS of a situation where the CHS generated a "false positive", so the team can fix/improve the CHS system, then no, the armchair OM logs do not do the job.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

I think that depends on what you consider "the job" to be.

If the job is merely to stop the "false positive" CHS nag emails, then yes, the armchair OM logs do the job.

If the job is to inform the team responsible for the CHS of a situation where the CHS generated a "false positive", so the team can fix/improve the CHS system, then no, the armchair OM logs do not do the job.

I think that depends on how the team is structured.

If the reviewers are part of the team then a suitably detailed armchair OM log would do the job just fine.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The impression I got from the session on Sunday (and I stress this is only an impression - I wish now I'd recorded it) is that the action of the CHS sending out its email puts the cache on a reviewer's watchlist, so they can see later on which caches were pinged and what the CO response was if any, and from that decide if any follow-up action needs to be taken. So if that's the case, the reviewers would see the OM. I also got the impression that some of our reviewers were more keen on the CHS than others. They also said that ignoring the CHS email isn't a good idea as that would suggest to them that the cache is abandoned.

Oh, that's very interesting. When they first started sending these automated CHS warnings, we were specifically told the message itself was the only artifact, so a widespread claim at the time was that if you didn't agree with the note, you could just ignore it and nothing else would ever happen. I don't know if niraD has more modern knowledge, but when he steps up and says "don't ignore it! report it!" now, I've always taken his reaction as being in the context of that standard because his point has always been that the CHS will never improve if no one ever tells GS what it's doing wrong.

So thanks for the update, although this just underscores even more what's wrong with a secret mechanism with rites known only to initiates. We gone to automated CHS warning being no big deal to them having essentially the same impact as an NA log filed by another geocacher.

8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I've yet to hear from any reviewer that the CHS is a burden especially when, from what I've heard, the use of it is entirely optional.  To the contrary, every reviewer, that has chimed in on the CHS,  indicates that it's a valuable tool.

They find the CHS a useful tool because they're now responsible for patrolling cache quality and taking unilateral action. And, no, not optional: a reviewer in one of these threads told us that GS told reviewers that they must create a CHS based patrolling procedure for their area. My point isn't that the CHS invented extra work. My point is that the reviewers should not have the burden of finding bad caches, so they shouldn't need the CHS to begin with. Having been saddle with the burden, then of course they're finding it more convenient to have a tool that helps them deal with it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Unless it's a fraudulent find.

Take all the finds for one day.   How many do you think are fraudulent?

Are you saying that you would only count finds on the same day after a DNF to drop the DNF logs as impacting the CHS.  Here are a couple of common scenarios.

Scenario 1:)

Geocacher A looks for a cache, can't find it (assume the cache is actually in place and needs no maintenance) and posts a DNF.

A few days later Geocacher B (or even Geocacher A) finds the cache.

In that scenario, it seems to me that the DNF log just means that cacher A could not find it, thus should not impact the CHS score.  Even if a week went by between the DNF and the Found It, the *current* status is that the cache does not need maintenance, and there is no need for an OM log.

Scenario 2:)

Geocacher A looks for a cache, can't find it (assume the cache is actually in place and needs no maintenance) and posts a DNF.  

Geocacher B looks for the cache a few days later, can't find it, drops a throw down, and posts a found it log.

Now there are two caches at GZ, thus the cache would need maintenance to remove the throwdown, and the CHS score should *not* change until the OM log is posted.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Oh, that's very interesting. When they first started sending these automated CHS warnings, we were specifically told the message itself was the only artifact, so a widespread claim at the time was that if you didn't agree with the note, you could just ignore it and nothing else would ever happen. I don't know if niraD has more modern knowledge, but when he steps up and says "don't ignore it! report it!" now, I've always taken his reaction as being in the context of that standard because his point has always been that the CHS will never improve if no one ever tells GS what it's doing wrong.

So thanks for the update, although this just underscores even more what's wrong with a secret mechanism with rites known only to initiates. We gone to automated CHS warning being no big deal to them having essentially the same impact as an NA log filed by another geocacher.

They find the CHS a useful tool because they're now responsible for patrolling cache quality and taking unilateral action. And, no, not optional: a reviewer in one of these threads told us that GS told reviewers that they must create a CHS based patrolling procedure for their area. My point isn't that the CHS invented extra work. My point is that the reviewers should not have the burden of finding bad caches, so they shouldn't need the CHS to begin with. Having been saddle with the burden, then of course they're finding it more convenient to have a tool that helps them deal with it.

Look at it as a business and bad caches are bad for business. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

Geocaches are not Groundspeak's business. Geocache listings are Groundspeak's business.

Bad caches/listings can lead to bad experiences and bad experiences can mean fewer paid members.    Good caches/listings can lead to good experiences and good experiences can lead to more paid members.    So it's in GS's interest to try to weed out bad caches/listings and encourage good caches/listings. 

I for one don't blame them in the least for trying to be more hands on.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...