Jump to content

Fraudulent "Performed Maintenance" logs


fizzymagic

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, niraD said:

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.

As long as the system relies on counting DNFs as its means of determining cache health, no amount of tweaking by the team is going to fix it. If they increase their threshold to reduce the incidence of false positives, it'll also let through more caches that really need maintenance. DNFs are simply a terrible measure of cache health because most of the time they have nothing to do with the state of the cache and just mean the seeker couldn't find it on the day.

The Help desk wasn't interested when I tried reporting my false positive a year or so back, they just told me it's a COs responsibility to maintain their caches, and I guess that's understandable since if they tweaked the algorithm in response to every false positive report they got from a CO they'd end up just chasing their tail. Feedback from reviewers who get to see the bigger picture of its overall success rate I'm sure would be a lot more helpful to the developers, and I would hope that at some point, someone will ask themselves whether counting DNFs really is the right way to go.

Link to comment
14 hours ago, niraD said:

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

Reminds me of another box listing site...LBNA Letterboxing North America. A database so full of listings for containers that were no longer there that the site became known as 'LetterBox Not Available'. 

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

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.

Yes, oftentimes I visit my hides just for the hike. For the record, I went out to Red Gum Cascade this morning and everything's in pristine condition. The only thing that's changed since I hid it in February last year is the 14 names in the logbook - no dampness, condensation, mould, fading, cracking or anything. One of these Sistemas stuck under a dry rock ledge out of the sun and weather will last for many years without needing any TLC.

 

20180405_105020.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

DNFs are simply a terrible measure of cache health because most of the time they have nothing to do with the state of the cache and just mean the seeker couldn't find it on the day.

Might be more accurate to say in isolation DNFs are simply a terrible measure of cache health because most of the time they have nothing to do with the state of the cache and just mean the seeker couldn't find it on the day.

Once they multiply they become a more useful measure of cache presence. The cache could well be perfectly healthy - just not where it's supposed to be ^_^

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

Might be more accurate to say in isolation DNFs are simply a terrible measure of cache health because most of the time they have nothing to do with the state of the cache and just mean the seeker couldn't find it on the day.

Once they multiply they become a more useful measure of cache presence. The cache could well be perfectly healthy - just not where it's supposed to be ^_^

Or it could just be a tricky hide, like the one I found a few months back that had ten consecutive DNFs prior to that, and it was right where it was supposed to be. Not every cache is an obvious P&G, and even those can get Blind Freddy DNFs by the likes of me.

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

Might be more accurate to say in isolation DNFs are simply a terrible measure of cache health because most of the time they have nothing to do with the state of the cache and just mean the seeker couldn't find it on the day.

Once they multiply they become a more useful measure of cache presence. The cache could well be perfectly healthy - just not where it's supposed to be ^_^

Or it could just be a tricky hide, like the one I found a few months back that had ten consecutive DNFs prior to that, and it was right where it was supposed to be. Not every cache is an obvious P&G, and even those can get Blind Freddy DNFs by the likes of me.

Absolutely - so weight the DNF's in accordance with the given D rating. I strongly suspect this already happens. I also think this has been discussed previously at length.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

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.  

I felt like I needed to follow up on this comment because I don't want anyone to get the impression that GS is some sort of greedy corporate entity.   Paid memberships are important in keeping geocaching viable.   Without them it wouldn't be the game we've come to know and love.   I get the impression that, although necessary,  the money side of the business is the least important aspect of geocaching to GS.   They've always offered a free membership and over the years that hasn't changed.    GS has always been an active participant in the growth and direction of the game but it seems more so lately.   Why?   Could geocaching have reached a point of size and scope that requires something more than community reporting to manage it?   Maybe it has something to do with the declining numbers we've seen in the recent past.   Has the perception of the game taken a downward turn?   I have no idea but I do know that owner maintenance has become a focus point and in my opinion that's a good thing.

What we fail to understand is that if Joe Scmo fails to maintain their cache it's not they who get the black eye.  It's GS and geocaching that take the hit.    I laugh when I hear people talk about Groundspeak as only a listing site, as if they are a silent partner who has no skin in the game.   Yet it's Groundspeak who's vilified when things start to go sideways.  The onus is put on them to fix the problem in a way that will satisfy everyone.

That's a tough spot to be in especially when your only suppose to be a listing site.

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

What we fail to understand is that if Joe Scmo fails to maintain their cache it's not they who get the black eye.  It's GS and geocaching that take the hit.    I laugh when I hear people talk about Groundspeak as only a listing site, as if they are a silent partner who has no skin in the game.   Yet it's Groundspeak who's vilified when things start to go sideways.  The onus is put on them to fix the problem in a way that will satisfy everyone.

Hmm, I've never heard Groundspeak being villified about Joe Scmo's abandoned caches, it's always "that bastard Scmo and his rubbish hides" that gets talked about at events. The big problem I see in all this is that their way of fixing the problem doesn't, and probably can't, satisfy everyone.

Here we don't have much of a cache maintenance problem. We have a cache-friendly cllimate, lots of bushland which encourages larger and more robust caches hidden out of the weather and away from muggles, and a community that's willing to step in and log NMs and NAs when a cache goes bad or missing. Any half-decent container stuck in a sheltered spot under a rock ledge away from mainstream muggledom will last pretty much indefinitely whether the CO is active or not - I've found plenty of Sistemas and ammo cans ten or fifteen years old with the original logbook (yes, a proper book with hard covers) bone dry and as good as the day it was bought. Archiving such caches simply because the CO doesn't respond to a CHS email and follow-up reviewer disable as a result of someone logging a DNF because they were looking under the wrong rock ledge doesn't improve the game in my opinion, rather it makes it worse, encouraging easy-to-reach guaranteed-smiley caches at the expense of the tougher more challenging ones.

I know I've started making my hints much more of a give-away than I used to, to try to keep the DNF count as low as possible after my run-in with the CHS. Is that a good thing? Maybe a few more people get quick smileys, but at the expense of the challenge of the tougher hide and the elation of finally cracking it on their second, third or fourth attempt. A side-effect of this one-size-fits-all push for "cache quality" seems to be to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator - roadside D1/T1.5 instant smileys that even Blind Freddy can find with his eyes closed, so no DNFs, no CHS pings and everyone's happy, except me and my mates who relish in those tough hides where a smiley is a bonus, not an expectation or entitlement and a DNF just means I didn't find it today but I'll be back to try again.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Hmm, I've never heard Groundspeak being villified about Joe Scmo's abandoned caches, it's always "that bastard Scmo and his rubbish hides" that gets talked about at events. The big problem I see in all this is that their way of fixing the problem doesn't, and probably can't, satisfy everyone.

Here we don't have much of a cache maintenance problem. We have a cache-friendly cllimate, lots of bushland which encourages larger and more robust caches hidden out of the weather and away from muggles, and a community that's willing to step in and log NMs and NAs when a cache goes bad or missing. Any half-decent container stuck in a sheltered spot under a rock ledge away from mainstream muggledom will last pretty much indefinitely whether the CO is active or not - I've found plenty of Sistemas and ammo cans ten or fifteen years old with the original logbook (yes, a proper book with hard covers) bone dry and as good as the day it was bought. Archiving such caches simply because the CO doesn't respond to a CHS email and follow-up reviewer disable as a result of someone logging a DNF because they were looking under the wrong rock ledge doesn't improve the game in my opinion, rather it makes it worse, encouraging easy-to-reach guaranteed-smiley caches at the expense of the tougher more challenging ones.

I know I've started making my hints much more of a give-away than I used to, to try to keep the DNF count as low as possible after my run-in with the CHS. Is that a good thing? Maybe a few more people get quick smileys, but at the expense of the challenge of the tougher hide and the elation of finally cracking it on their second, third or fourth attempt. A side-effect of this one-size-fits-all push for "cache quality" seems to be to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator - roadside D1/T1.5 instant smileys that even Blind Freddy can find with his eyes closed, so no DNFs, no CHS pings and everyone's happy, except me and my mates who relish in those tough hides where a smiley is a bonus, not an expectation or entitlement and a DNF just means I didn't find it today but I'll be back to try again.

But you do hear rants about how GS has to do something to fix the "problem"  or what they are doing is wrong.   Seems like every time they step in and try implement something it's never enough or it doesn't quite please everyone.   The subject of this thread is a perfect example.  I guess that's the nature of the beast.   Like I've said before,  It will never be perfect but it can be better. 

I get your point about ownerless caches but if we can't get responsible owner to at least communicate,  how is any monitoring system suppose to work?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, colleda said:

Just watching to see what happens, if anything.

It's one that I found about four and a half years ago and wondered at the time how long it would last. Lasted longer than I thought, a cache in a tree with a pulley system to retrieve it.

What puzzles me are the six people who posted found logs and all indicated that there was something wrong with the retrieval mechanism yet no one posted a NM....... Interesting.    I'd have to agree with you,  I'd bet it's gone as well.       

 

 

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...