Jump to content

Cache Owner Score (COS)


L0ne.R

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

If there's an active cache owner that fits the description of the owner above, please please give me a way to filter for those owners.  I want to find their caches and not waste time and money looking for poor quality set-em-and-forget-em for-the-numbers caches.

Just a typical CO in my area. Except for the part about being dead.

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

FYI regarding death. We take great pride in our caches and maintaining them. We've had some great logs from people who say our caches never disappoint. We don't want them propped up. In our profile there's a statement asking reviewers to archive all of our caches if they hear we have died, or if there is no account activity--no login for more than 2 months, no response to NMs, NAs and reviewer notes. Hopefully a reviewer will see the note, or another cacher will see it and will alert the reviewer. We do not want our reputation sullied by deteriorating caches that are propped up with litter throwdowns. That would be worse then a low COS. The low COS tells others, if you want a good caching experience don't find our caches because we're dead and those caches are in bad shape.

That's sad. Almost any well maintained cache will provide at least a year or two of enjoyment after the owner stops maintaining it, and in my experience they degrade gracefully. Typically, a well maintained cache disappears before it gets into bad shape, for example, so it's just a matter of a simple DNF, not a pulpy mess. I hate to see that kind of cache archived just because someday it might possibly turn up missing. Especially since the cache life cycle is a natural part of the sport for even the best maintained caches, so a cache failing or going missing shouldn't be considered a traumatic experience.

But that's kinda typical of the new attitude that drives me crazy: the possibility that one or two cachers might possibly not find a cache or find it broken trumps the hundreds of cachers that would enjoy the cache exactly as it was intended before it fails.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

You'd disagree that one single objective criterion in this multifaceted "cache health" system shouldn't on its own be determinative of what happens to the cache?

OK then, we disagree.

No - I disgree that one single objective criterion means squat - which is the claim you originally made.

I do love facts :)

Link to comment

Just out of curiosity; where in the algorithm do the newbies on phone apps who can't find their car keys let alone a cache fall???

The aforementioned group are quick to log:  can't find, it is not here, needs archived.

True, I am painting with a broad brush.  However, that is frequently the reality out here in the "real caching world"

 

Having the entry level folks "driving the bus" seems as well advised as having a first year intern conduct neurosurgery in an outpatient clinic.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, humboldt flier said:

 

The aforementioned group are quick to log:  can't find, it is not here, needs archived.

 

2

Personally, that's never happened to any of our caches in 14 years of hiding caches. We have had NMs posted but never an NA.

Not that trigger-happy newbie NAs don't happen to owners, but I haven't witnessed it. 

I expect that it has happened. Has it happened to one of your caches?

If we got an NA for a DNF, I would probably contact the finder and ask where they looked, if it seems that they looked in the right place I'd go check.

If they don't reply, or their reply indicates they didn't look in the right spot I'd  post an OM with details about why I think the cache is likely still there (and a note saying I'll go check if the next person can't find it). I would hope the COS algorithm would consider that good cache ownership and not dock points.

However, that's the weak point in the COS idea--the assumption is cache owners won't game the system. From my experience many will. Some will post an OM on a cache that is likely gone or is in rough shape without checking and fixing/replacing. I'm already seeing a rise in this behavior locally and I suspect it's because word has gotten around about the CHS score.

Edited by L0ne.R
Fixed a sentence
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

No - I disgree that one single objective criterion means squat - which is the claim you originally made.

I do love facts :)

In my view, a distinction without a difference.

Not wishing to split hairs but where I come from, distinction and difference mean the same thing.

English - it's not for everyone :lol:

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
42 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Not wishing to split hairs but where I come from, distinction and difference mean the same thing.

English - it's not for everyone :lol:

Actually, they're not the same. But I believe you grasp my meaning.

I'm done.

Perhaps someone should let the good people at the OED know...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/distinction

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
25 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:
50 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Not wishing to split hairs but where I come from, distinction and difference mean the same thing.

English - it's not for everyone :lol:

Actually, they're not the same. But I believe you grasp my meaning.

I'm done.

Perhaps someone should let the good people at the OED know...

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/distinction

lol, I just have to chime in because this is too funny. You realize, TM, right below the definition is this:

Quote

Phrases

  • distinction without a difference

    • An artificially created distinction where no real difference exists.

 
Gotta side with TRR on this one (distinct, but not different) - context creates the distinction between the two terms. ;):laughing:
(only in regards to grammar, not the point being debated, lol)
Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

lol, I just have to chime in because this is too funny. You realize, TM, right below the definition is this:

Quote

Phrases

  • distinction without a difference

    • An artificially created distinction where no real difference exists.

 
Gotta side with TRR on this one - context creates the distinction between the two terms. ;):laughing:

Wow - that's absolute nonsense!

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Wow - that's absolute nonsense!

Here's an (A).

Here's another (A).

They are distinct, but not different. Obviously, what creates the 'difference' needs to be defined. (They are different instances of the letter A, but not different letters - I'd say that is what can lead to usage of 'distinct'. When there's some similarity, but clearly a difference in some form. Distinct, but not different. blah. grammar. language. dumb.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Here's an (A).

Here's another (A).

They are distinct, but not different. Obviously, what creates the 'difference' needs to be defined. (They are different instances of the letter A, but not different letters - I'd say that is what can lead to usage of 'distinct'. When there's some similarity, but clearly a difference in some form. Distinct, but not different. blah. grammar. language. dumb.

I like the way you've explained that enough to not waste time listing ways in which those two A's are different/distinct ;)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Not that trigger-happy newbie NAs don't happen to owners, but I haven't witnessed it.

I remember one specific case several years ago where a newbie filed a mistaken NA, in this case, not trigger happy, just had no idea what a multicache was. The mistake was exacerbated by the fact that the CO was distracted, so the perfectly good cache did actually get archived. I was watching the whole episode from the sidelines, and then after it was archived, I got a chance after it was archived to go find the cache which was, as I expected, was in good shape, so I found it without any trouble. (That started my love affair with finding archived caches.) The CO eventually got involved again and asked for it to be unarchived, so no harm done. It lived on for another 6 years.

The bottom line is that even though I can point to a single example of an ignorant newbie posting errant NA, the example itself shows why an errant NA isn't anything to worry about. That's one reason I'm annoyed by the new interface burying NAs so deep that newer cachers don't even know about them.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I remember one specific case several years ago where a newbie filed a mistaken NA, in this case, not trigger happy, just had no idea what a multicache was. The mistake was exacerbated by the fact that the CO was distracted, so the perfectly good cache did actually get archived. I was watching the whole episode from the sidelines, and then after it was archived, I got a chance after it was archived to go find the cache which was, as I expected, was in good shape, so I found it without any trouble. (That started my love affair with finding archived caches.) The CO eventually got involved again and asked for it to be unarchived, so no harm done. It lived on for another 6 years.

The bottom line is that even though I can point to a single example of an ignorant newbie posting errant NA, the example itself shows why an errant NA isn't anything to worry about. That's one reason I'm annoyed by the new interface burying NAs so deep that newer cachers don't even know about them.

Did the CO get re-involved before or after your find?

Link to comment
On 2018-02-14 at 6:31 PM, dprovan said:

I don't know if the CO ever checked the cache again. Why would she need to? It was in good shape when I found it and while it was in service, and the NA had nothing to do with the condition of the cache.

Sounds like an owner whose plan for maintenance is to never go back, let the reviewer archive it when problems (real or not) arise, and activate it if someone else will take care of it. In my opinion her COS score is very low. I would prefer not to search for caches by owners like this because I wouldn't want to encourage the behavior.

Edited by L0ne.R
Added some additional thoughts.
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Sounds like an owner who's plan for maintenance is to never go back, let the reviewer archive it when problems (real or not) arise, and activate it if someone else will take care of it. In my opinion her COS score is very low. I would prefer not to search for caches by owners like this because I wouldn't want to encourage the behavior.

Addendum: Not to say that you or others shouldn't look for her caches, I'd just like a way to filter those types of cachers out of my search, especially when traveling when I'd like to maximize my vacation enjoyment.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think it's pretty obvious that GS isn't considering a Cache Owner Score but one of the applications where it could be useful would be as a factor for determining a Cache Health Score on a specific cache.  One of the biggest complaints about the CHS is it's accuracy in identifying false positives.  If an overall COS were calculated based on all of a cache owners caches it could be used in the algorithm for a specific cache.  For example, a geocacher that has 20 hides with an overall good COS might suggest that a CHS on a specific cache might be a false positive if the COS demonstrates that they have an overall good record for maintaining all of their caches.  A CO with an overall low COS might  suggest that they don't maintain their caches well, and indicate that a cache with a poor CHS probably *does* indicate that it needs maintenance.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I think it's pretty obvious that GS isn't considering a Cache Owner Score but one of the applications where it could be useful would be as a factor for determining a Cache Health Score on a specific cache.  One of the biggest complaints about the CHS is it's accuracy in identifying false positives.  If an overall COS were calculated based on all of a cache owners caches it could be used in the algorithm for a specific cache.  For example, a geocacher that has 20 hides with an overall good COS might suggest that a CHS on a specific cache might be a false positive if the COS demonstrates that they have an overall good record for maintaining all of their caches.  A CO with an overall low COS might  suggest that they don't maintain their caches well, and indicate that a cache with a poor CHS probably *does* indicate that it needs maintenance.  

Now that's some good thinking right there B)

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I think it's pretty obvious that GS isn't considering a Cache Owner Score but one of the applications where it could be useful would be as a factor for determining a Cache Health Score on a specific cache.  One of the biggest complaints about the CHS is it's accuracy in identifying false positives.  If an overall COS were calculated based on all of a cache owners caches it could be used in the algorithm for a specific cache.  For example, a geocacher that has 20 hides with an overall good COS might suggest that a CHS on a specific cache might be a false positive if the COS demonstrates that they have an overall good record for maintaining all of their caches.  A CO with an overall low COS might  suggest that they don't maintain their caches well, and indicate that a cache with a poor CHS probably *does* indicate that it needs maintenance.  

The designers would have to be careful with the feedback loop. You could end up with "good" cache owners who have "good" caches because the good CHS gives a boost to the COS, and the good COS gives a boost to the CHS. And vice versa with "bad" cache owners who have "bad" caches because they dug themselves into a statistical hole and can never maintain their caches well enough to get out.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Sounds like an owner who's plan for maintenance is to never go back, let the reviewer archive it when problems (real or not) arise, and activate it if someone else will take care of it. In my opinion her COS score is very low. I would prefer not to search for caches by owners like this because I wouldn't want to encourage the behavior.

Well, if that's what it sounds like, you'd be completely wrong, which is exactly why I think a COS score is a stupid idea. Things played out in a specific way in this one particular case,and you want that to reflect badly on the CO's score without caring about the possibility of that the resulting score is entirely inaccurate. And on top of that fundamental wrongheadedness, the actual event is a perfect example of why even "the worst" cases that you want to COS to prevent end up with perfectly happy outcomes.

This CO is exacly the kind of CO that I want participating in my geocaching environment, yet you're determined to make sure she never plants another cache again because of this one example that had no negative consequences whatsoever. I couldn't invent a better example of why I'm so annoyed with where geocaching is headed.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, dprovan said:

You're determined to make sure she never plants another cache again

You've misinterpreted this part of what I said "I would prefer not to search for caches by owners like this because I wouldn't want to encourage the behavior." It does not say I want to make sure she never plants another cache. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

They must have some redeeming qualities you've not told us about.

People supporting the COS assume that no COs have any redeeming qualities that don't show up in the COS, while I find at score like this would focuses us on everything except what makes a CO valuable to seekers. I shouldn't have to tell you every redeeming quality she has just to prove the COS is wrong, yet that's what it's coming to.

In fact, thanks for putting your finger on it for me. I see COs as having an inherent value that's quite high, but can be reduced through bad behavior. You see this CO having a value of zero unless I tell you about her redeeming qualities so you'll consider her worthy of anything. Until now, I've only vaguely understood why COs are getting fed up with the modern score based attitude that's swept the sport.

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

You've misinterpreted this part of what I said "I would prefer not to search for caches by owners like this because I wouldn't want to encourage the behavior." It does not say I want to make sure she never plants another cache. 

You might not think it will prevent the CO from planting caches, but I think it's inevitable that's what the COS would be used for.

But, anyway, it's wrong enough that you think you don't want to find caches by this CO from what I've described, but at least it's only your loss. There's literally nothing this CO could have done to make this cache better, yet you're prepared to strike her from your list for not doing it. Who do you expect to hide caches for you to find if this CO isn't good enough? GS?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, niraD said:

The designers would have to be careful with the feedback loop. You could end up with "good" cache owners who have "good" caches because the good CHS gives a boost to the COS, and the good COS gives a boost to the CHS. And vice versa with "bad" cache owners who have "bad" caches because they dug themselves into a statistical hole and can never maintain their caches well enough to get out.

Obviously, they wouldn't include the cache being rated with a CHS in the overall COS.  As I see it, whatever algorithm they're using for the CHS, there may be numerous factors with a different amount of weight associated with each criteria.  Avoiding a feedback loop could be mostly avoided by choosing the right "weight" of the COS for the CHS on a specific cache.  Although as I suggested before, a loophole in a COS would be that one could improve their score simply by putting out more caches, which would have an initial "good" CHS value until it started getting DNFs, and NM logs.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

But, anyway, it's wrong enough that you think you don't want to find caches by this CO from what I've described, but at least it's only your loss.

 

I want to participate in a game where integrity counts. I don't want to inadvertently participate and contribute to irresponsible ownership behavior. Allow me to filter out cache owners who repeatedly do not respond to NMs and NAs. That repeatedly receive reviewer notes and disables. That haven't logged in in over a year. It is no loss to me, it would be a gain, I'd start geocaching again. I'd plan trips around geocaching again.

Quote

There's literally nothing this CO could have done to make this cache better, yet you're prepared to strike her from your list for not doing it. Who do you expect to hide caches for you to find if this CO isn't good enough? GS?

 

There's plenty this CO could have done. She could have responded to the NA. If she didn't want to go check, confident that the newbie didn't understand what a multi is. She could have posted an OM saying so. Instead she did nothing. She also left a cache to rot. She had/has no intention of checking and retrieving it. Yet, it sounds like she was quick to respond when you checked and said everything was fine.  It would bother me greatly if I found that cache, then read later that the circumstances around its existence and the irresponsible behavior of the CO, and how I participated in enabling the behavior.  

Quote

Who do you expect to hide caches for you to find if this CO isn't good enough?

I don't need much, just a few good caches owned by a few responsible owners per town/city. I'll travel if I have to. A couple of good responsibly owned caches rather then a dozen set-em-and-forget-em caches would be far more satisfying. I'm confident that they are out there. They are just hidden amongst piles of chaff.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, dprovan said:
3 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

They must have some redeeming qualities you've not told us about.

People supporting the COS assume that no COs have any redeeming qualities that don't show up in the COS, while I find at score like this would focuses us on everything except what makes a CO valuable to seekers. I shouldn't have to tell you every redeeming quality she has just to prove the COS is wrong, yet that's what it's coming to.

In fact, thanks for putting your finger on it for me. I see COs as having an inherent value that's quite high, but can be reduced through bad behavior. You see this CO having a value of zero unless I tell you about her redeeming qualities so you'll consider her worthy of anything. Until now, I've only vaguely understood why COs are getting fed up with the modern score based attitude that's swept the sport

Which people supporting the COS assume that no COs have any redeeming qualities that don't show up in the COS? Presumably you've carried out extensive surveys to be able to make that claim and wouldn't just be guessing / mind-reading.

You will notice, if you read my post again, that I didn't ask you to tell us what any of the redeeming qualities might be - let alone all of them - so you can relax on that score :)

Again, based on the story you've told so far, we have a CO who, faced with a query / potential issue on one of their caches did nothing whatsoever. In fact it seems that everyone - yourself included, stood by for long enough to allow the reviewer to end up wasting their time going through the due process for archiving a cache that the CO should have been taking care of and, as if that weren't bad enough, STILL having invested no effort whatsoever, the CO wasted even more of the reviewer's time in un-archiving the cache.

So, taking that story at face value, when you passionately proclaim This CO is exacly the kind of CO that I want participating in my geocaching environment I quite naturally assume that there MUST be redeeming qualities you haven't shared with us because I struggle to understand, based on your story, why anyone would set their sights so low and why anyone would want to encourage the sort of CO who has zero regard for the time of others - especially volunteer reviewers.

With regard to scoring the CO myself, again, I have only what you've told us to go off but you shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that I would credit that CO with zero value unless you tell us more - you can't possibly know that. It might be more credible for you to claim that I don't rank this CO as highly as you seem to though - based on the story you've told us so far.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
14 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I want to participate in a game where integrity counts. I don't want to inadvertently participate and contribute to irresponsible ownership behavior. Allow me to filter out cache owners who repeatedly do not respond to NMs and NAs. That repeatedly receive reviewer notes and disables. That haven't logged in in over a year. It is no loss to me, it would be a gain, I'd start geocaching again. I'd plan trips around geocaching again.

Hmm, I wonder how I'd stack up under this. I've never received an NM or an NA so there's no record of how I respond to one. A bit like the credit rating of someone who's never had credit - I hear that can be problematic. I've also had a number of reviewer notes and disables, but they were all pre-publication when the reviewer had some questions. Do they count? Would the hypothetical COS algorithm know the difference? You didn't mention CHS emails, but I've had one of them too, so that's pretty bad I guess, even if it was allegedly a false positive due to just one DNF on a new T5 cache. After all, where there's smoke, they say.

Okay, I generally log in most days, but rarely does that have anything to do with cache maintenance. As long as a CO continues to monitor their emails and acts on any reports of problems, do they need to log into the site at all? About the only thing you can't do on an existing cache from the app now is modify the page listing. Conversely, the most evil of COs could be logged in every day recording their tens of thousands of smileys, real or imagined, and never even look at their dilapidated hides.

The point I'm making is that it's all well and good to list these things that might count against COs in their COS, but without a great deal of care it's all too easy for such an algorithm to catch innocent COs in its web. I mean, the CHS algorithm has been with us for two and a half years now but is still throwing up some pretty astounding false positives, like the most recent one I saw a few months back, with a fairly high D rating and no NMs or NAs, that had been found two weeks earlier and then had a couple of DNFs due to excessive muggles near GZ. I hate to think what their COS algorithm might throw up, especially if its result is publicly listed or used for blocking further hides.

Edited by barefootjeff
I can't count.
Link to comment
22 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

So, taking that story at face value, when you passionately proclaim This CO is exacly the kind of CO that I want participating in my geocaching environment I quite naturally assume that there MUST be redeeming qualities you haven't shared with us because I struggle to understand, based on your story, why anyone would set their sights so low and why anyone would want to encourage the sort of CO who has zero regard for the time of others - especially volunteer reviewers.

My main point is that the story I told shouldn't reduce anyone's opinion of the CO one iota, let alone take her from the default high value which all COs deserve barring evidence to the contrary down to zero. The CO missed or ignored a single NA. My conclusion? She has a life.

As it happens, that CO did and does have a good track record, but from my story alone you can see that she had one good cache in good shape, and that fact alone should easily wipe out the tiny negative of letting that cache get archived by an NA that obviously had no merit. Unless, like L0ne.R, you insist on requiring every CO to follow some arbitrary standard of behavior he calls "integrity" even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of anyone's geocaching experience.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I want to participate in a game where integrity counts. I don't want to inadvertently participate and contribute to irresponsible ownership behavior. Allow me to filter out cache owners who repeatedly do not respond to NMs and NAs. That repeatedly receive reviewer notes and disables. That haven't logged in in over a year. It is no loss to me, it would be a gain, I'd start geocaching again. I'd plan trips around geocaching again.

The problem here is that you're jumping to this conclusion based on my report of her overlooking a single NA (no NM) on a single cache. And you're being very insistent about it. I have to assume the COS you'd invent would be similarly unforgiving.

The rest of your post amounts to complaining about the fact that she didn't drop everything and run out right away to do what you think she should have as quickly as possible. But I look at the result -- a fine cache lived on several more years -- and can't imagine how anyone being reasonable can complain about anything she did, let alone conclude that she's an unfit CO.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

My main point is that the story I told shouldn't reduce anyone's opinion of the CO one iota, let alone take her from the default high value which all COs deserve barring evidence to the contrary down to zero. The CO missed or ignored a single NA. My conclusion? She has a life.

As it happens, that CO did and does have a good track record, but from my story alone you can see that she had one good cache in good shape, and that fact alone should easily wipe out the tiny negative of letting that cache get archived by an NA that obviously had no merit. Unless, like L0ne.R, you insist on requiring every CO to follow some arbitrary standard of behavior he calls "integrity" even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of anyone's geocaching experience.

Until you told your story I had no opinion whatsoever of that CO - so you can relax safe in the knowledge that your story didn't reduce my opinion.

Any opinion I've since formed of that CO is based on their complete lack of performance with regard to the commitments they made when they signed up to geocaching.com as well as their complete lack of respect for the time of the volunteer reviewer's precious time, as described in the story you told and despite your efforts to gloss over the complete lack of care.

The presence or otherwise of this one good cache is pretty much irrelevant.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

The problem here is that you're jumping to this conclusion based on my report of her overlooking a single NA (no NM) on a single cache. And you're being very insistent about it. I have to assume the COS you'd invent would be similarly unforgiving.

NMs or NAs shouldn't dock ratings just based on getting an NA/NM. However, a single NA resulting in a reviewer archival should.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

NMs or NAs shouldn't dock ratings just based on getting an NA/NM. However, a single NA resulting in a reviewer archival should.

Why should letting nature takes it course be a problem? Let's think about this. There were two choices. The CO could have archived the cache, or the CO could have waited for the reviewer to archive the cache. So what makes the second choice inferior? Is it because the reviewer had to do something? Is it because the CO could have immediately archived the cache but the reviewer was forced to wait a month? If so, then how soon after receiving the NA would have been quick enough to satisfied you? Why rank the choice of waiting even inferior, let alone outright bad?

Honestly, you've clearly forgotten that COs are just playing a game. You make it sound like they're paid to maintain caches.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Until you told your story I had no opinion whatsoever of that CO - so you can relax safe in the knowledge that your story didn't reduce my opinion.

That's what I'm saying: knowing nothing about the CO, you give them a rating of zero and then complain that I haven't given you any reason to raise it. Me, any CO I know nothing about, I consider a saint until you show me what they've done that's so wrong to suggest I shouldn't look for their caches.

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Any opinion I've since formed of that CO is based on their complete lack of performance with regard to the commitments they made when they signed up to geocaching.com as well as their complete lack of respect for the time of the volunteer reviewer's precious time, as described in the story you told and despite your efforts to gloss over the complete lack of care.

I guess it hardly matters, but what lack of performance are you talking about? The cache was fine and remained fine. You presume some lack of care based on the fact that there was nothing wrong that required care. The only person that wasted the reviewer's time was the newbie filing the NA. (Besides, if this had been today, the reviewer probably would have welcomed the chance to do something interesting instead of scouting around looking at cache health scores just in case some cache has a numerical failure.)

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Why should letting nature takes it course be a problem? Let's think about this. There were two choices. The CO could have archived the cache, or the CO could have waited for the reviewer to archive the cache. So what makes the second choice inferior? Is it because the reviewer had to do something? Is it because the CO could have immediately archived the cache but the reviewer was forced to wait a month?

Yup.

The listing is still public. It's a deadzone to the geocaching community.  The owner can deal with it, and should deal with it as soon as they're able. Letting "nature take its course" is offloading responsibility to the volunteer reviewer.  IF there is a COS, then any measurable instance where a CO shirks their responsibility (or outright abandons it) should be weighted into the equation.

I do think that over a CO's career there should be a weighted curve, somehow. Older factors affecting the score should weighed less than newer factors, if there's no hard limit (say like credit history being affected by only the last 7 years).  Or if an owner has 99 good condition caches and one bad one, the one bad one should be weighed less than the good.  Just thinking out loud.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That's what I'm saying: knowing nothing about the CO, you give them a rating of zero and then complain that I haven't given you any reason to raise it. Me, any CO I know nothing about, I consider a saint until you show me what they've done that's so wrong to suggest I shouldn't look for their caches.

I guess it hardly matters, but what lack of performance are you talking about? The cache was fine and remained fine. You presume some lack of care based on the fact that there was nothing wrong that required care. The only person that wasted the reviewer's time was the newbie filing the NA. (Besides, if this had been today, the reviewer probably would have welcomed the chance to do something interesting instead of scouting around looking at cache health scores just in case some cache has a numerical failure.)

I suggest that this CO must have redeeming qualities you haven't told us about - and you see that as a complaint? You might imagine a complaint but wherever it came from it wasn't from me. I just said what I thought.

And if you want to imagine these saintly people - you go for it by all means.

I don't know why you'd ask if it hardly matters but the lack of performance is not only clear for everyone to see but is now a matter of permanent record in the logs on that cache. Pretending that evidence doesn't exist won't alter the facts.

I'm not a volunteer reviewer but I'm confident that the mundane process of routine cache archival for people who CBA to follow through on their prior commitments would not be a part of my role that could ever be considered the slightest bit interesting. I imagine there are many more aspects of being a reviewer that are far more interesting than enacting the geocaching equivalent of the role of night soil man.

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...