Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
L0ne.R

CHS score. Is it making a difference?

Recommended Posts

In September 2017 I ran a Needs Maintenance PQ in my area--caches within 35 miles of my location with a red cross attribute.

September 2017 the number was 916.

March 2018 the number of caches with a red cross attribute is 833.

Statistically significant? Probably not, but maybe CHS is working.

I'll check again in 6 months.

 

Edited by L0ne.R
2019>2018 typo. Moderator edit - "CHS" is "Cache Health Score"

Share this post


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

I'll check again in 6 months.

I know there's a "way back" machine, but...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

What does the "O" in "CHO" stand for?  I would have used either "CHA" (Cache Health Algorithm) or "CHS" (Cache Health Score).  For those readers who might be puzzled by the "CHO" reference, please see this Help Center article.

From my perspective as a reviewer, the CHS has had a positive impact.  It makes it easier for reviewers to identify caches that might have issues, so that we can read the logs and determine whether reviewer action is necessary.  I also see many examples where cache owners have maintained their cache within a week or two of receiving a friendly reminder email triggered by a low Health Score.  Once the owner takes action, I take that cache off my list of things I'm monitoring.  And, the community has a newly maintained cache to go visit.  Everyone wins!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Keystone said:

It makes it easier for reviewers to identify caches that might have issues, so that we can read the logs and determine whether reviewer action is necessary.

In my area, it seems clear that, if the reviewer is reading the logs at all, he's reading them to determine whether reviewer action is NOT necessary. For example, I just saw a cache where action was taken with just 3 DNFs that didn't particularly suggest anything except 3 cachers had bad days, although they also didn't suggest that the DNFs were unrelated to the cache, so none of them were "my car broke down" or anything like that.

Anyway, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CHS reduces the number of bad caches. What I don't like about what's going on is that geocachers no longer feel involved in identifying cache maintenance issues. My area used to have regular NMs and NAs when there were problems, but now it's rare for even an NM, and NAs are a thing of the past. To some degree, that's because the reviewer is jumping in and declaring a problem earlier than any of us would, but I think the people like me that used to post NMs and NAs aren't bothering as much. I think that's a shame, particularly if 916-833=83 caches is a proportionally minuscule number of caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been monitoring TD logs within my notification area and have yet to see a reviewer disable a cache for anything other than in response to an NA, so as far as I can see, the only impact the CHS has had here is the false positives.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Keystone said:

What does the "O" in "CHO" stand for?  I would have used either "CHA" (Cache Health Algorithm) or "CHS" (Cache Health Score).  For those readers who might be puzzled by the "CHO" reference, please see this Help Center article.

 

 

Yep. I didn't notice my typo. Can you change the title for me?

 

Share this post


Link to post

Typo?  What typo?  I don't see no typo.  ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Yep. I didn't notice my typo. Can you change the title for me?

While you're at it, possible to find out how folks are doing PQs for 2019 already?  Thanks.    :)

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Typo?  What typo?  I don't see no typo.  ;)

Nope, I think it's great that L0ne.R was able to travel into the future and confirm that the number of NMs will decrease a year from now. Of course, those could be the result of other feature changes that just haven't been implemented yet (like the new "CHO score"), so it's tough to come to any conclusions at this time.

:laughing:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

In September 2018 I ran a Needs Maintenance PQ in my area--caches within 35 miles of my location with a red cross attribute.

September 2018 the number was 916.

March 2019 the number of caches with a red cross attribute is 833.

Statistically significant? Probably not, but maybe CHS is working.

I'll check again in 6 months.

 

Finally, proof of time travel!  L0ne.R comes from the FUTURE and lays it all out for us!

 

By the way, isn't saying "CHS Score" kinda like saying "PIN Number" or "ATM Machine"?

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

Have not had a nasty-gram in months since I belly-ached about the low timers on phone apps were seemingly the most strident folks. *(quick to drop the NA, NM).

 

Makes me wonder if the algorithm is weighted differently now.  (away from the low-timers on phone apps)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

What I don't like about what's going on is that geocachers no longer feel involved in identifying cache maintenance issues. My area used to have regular NMs and NAs when there were problems, but now it's rare for even an NM, and NAs are a thing of the past. To some degree, that's because the reviewer is jumping in and declaring a problem earlier than any of us would, but I think the people like me that used to post NMs and NAs aren't bothering as much.

Why not? It's easier now to log NM or NA when logging a Find or DNF thanks to the changed logging screen on the website.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

In September 2018 I ran a Needs Maintenance PQ in my area--caches within 35 miles of my location with a red cross attribute.

September 2018 the number was 916.

March 2018 the number of caches with a red cross attribute is 833.

Statistically significant? Probably not, but maybe CHS is working.

I'll check again in 6 months.

 

I think the CHS system is working to help get things cleaned up but it's mainly because of reviewer action. I'm sure a CHS email gets some owners' attention but i'm not sure how many actually take steps to check on a potential problem. There are just too many out there that don't care or are awol these days.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, dprovan said:

My area used to have regular NMs and NAs when there were problems, but now it's rare for even an NM, and NAs are a thing of the past.

So your area / community isn't the Utopia you've had us believe it is after all.

It sounds similar to most other places that people have numerously described in previous threads.

Sorry to hear that your area has fallen into the same decline the rest of us have experienced.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

....caches within 35 miles of my location with a red cross attribute.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what actually provoked the NM log on some of those.  I've seen many instances of NM log types that were somewhat frivolous or inappropriate uses.   I'd say that more than half of those don't get cleared correctly because either the CO forgot about it, is unaware how to do it, or is no longer active.  Since the Health Score appears to be made up of more than just the NM Attribute, it seems to me your search parameters are anecdotal at best.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Why not? It's easier now to log NM or NA when logging a Find or DNF thanks to the changed logging screen on the website.

 

Because it creates too much animosity and many players have quit logging DNF, NM, and NA. :(

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Because it creates too much animosity and many players have quit logging DNF, NM, and NA. :(

I don't change my logging habits based on whether it ruffles someone's feathers.  Grow up and thicken your skin a bit, I say.  If I see a cache needs maintenance, I say it.  If I think a cache needs to be archived (or needs reviewer intervention), I say it.  If people choose to be offended by this stuff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I don't change my logging habits based on whether it ruffles someone's feathers.  Grow up and thicken your skin a bit, I say.  If I see a cache needs maintenance, I say it.  If I think a cache needs to be archived (or needs reviewer intervention), I say it.  If people choose to be offended by this stuff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

 

Same here, but truthfully. Has logging accordingly ever caused you animosity from other members? I has me, but has not stopped me from logging accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
22 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I don't change my logging habits based on whether it ruffles someone's feathers.  Grow up and thicken your skin a bit, I say.  If I see a cache needs maintenance, I say it.  If I think a cache needs to be archived (or needs reviewer intervention), I say it.  If people choose to be offended by this stuff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

 

Same here, but truthfully. Has logging accordingly ever caused you animosity from other members? I has me, but has not stopped me from logging accordingly.

We have one local CO who is openly very rude to anyone who logs NM on any of his caches.

Groundspeak seem happy to tolerate it.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

We have one local CO who is openly very rude to anyone who logs NM on any of his caches.

Groundspeak seem happy to tolerate it.

 

 

I'm honestly afraid of one person known to carry a handgun and just bypass their listings after the rants they post on the cache page after my son and I posted NM and NA on a stinking film pot cache. :(

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
20 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

We have one local CO who is openly very rude to anyone who logs NM on any of his caches.

Groundspeak seem happy to tolerate it.

 

 

I'm honestly afraid of one person known to carry a handgun and just bypass their listings after the rants they post on the cache page after my son and I posted NM and NA on a stinking film pot cache. :(

This guy doesn't have a handgun but I can't help but wonder how many newbies gave up before they'd got properly started after being subjected to his abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

 

Same here, but truthfully. Has logging accordingly ever caused you animosity from other members? I has me, but has not stopped me from logging accordingly.

I suppose, but only when I call people out for poor practices, like allowing (and defending) throwdowns or once when I called a CO out for stating they would not be performing maintenance and posted a NA log on their cache.  I'm not mean about this stuff, but there's no need to be shy or weird about calling attention to poorly maintained caches.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

I suppose, but only when I call people out for poor practices, like allowing (and defending) throwdowns or once when I called a CO out for stating they would not be performing maintenance and posted a NA log on their cache.  I'm not mean about this stuff, but there's no need to be shy or weird about calling attention to poorly maintained caches.

 

Agreed, but I think sometimes it's best handled privately in a PM to the reviewer. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

I don't change my logging habits based on whether it ruffles someone's feathers.  Grow up and thicken your skin a bit, I say.  If I see a cache needs maintenance, I say it.  If I think a cache needs to be archived (or needs reviewer intervention), I say it.  If people choose to be offended by this stuff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, if there is an overall reduction in the number of red crosses on caches, it's worth considering that it may be at least partially due to few geocaches posting NM logs because it will result in a lower CHS score and cause friction in the community between hiders and finders. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, if there is an overall reduction in the number of red crosses on caches, it's worth considering that it may be at least partially due to few geocaches posting NM logs because it will result in a lower CHS score and cause friction in the community between hiders and finders. 

Yes, I wonder how to interpret the numbers.

I assumed that if CHS is working, in 6 months I would see a meaningful decrease in the number of red wrenches. 

Do these numbers point to the CHS having little effect? Or perhaps it means that CHS has a significant effect because the numbers are not rising?

Does a steady state of red wrenches mean that as the red wrenches are cleared, other caches are being flagged at an equal rate? 

If there's a steady state, what does that suggest about maintenance and CHS?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Because it creates too much animosity and many players have quit logging DNF, NM, and NA. :(

Aside from occasional newbies who think "I can't find it" = must be gone = NA what's the problem? CO getting pissy because they have to check on their cache a little more often?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:
3 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Because it creates too much animosity and many players have quit logging DNF, NM, and NA. :(

Aside from occasional newbies who think "I can't find it" = must be gone = NA what's the problem? CO getting pissy because they have to check on their cache a little more often?

More like CO getting pissy to the point where newbies either think anyone who actually wants to enjoy nice caches in good order and dares to say so will be subject to abuse or even to the point where newbies think that geocachers are all juvenile minded thugs and decide that they want no further part in the game, contributing to the race to the bottom.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

I assumed that if CHS is working, in 6 months I would see a meaningful decrease in the number of red wrenches. 

That's kind of a big jump to assume.  The NM Attribute is one of 5 stated log types/circumstances taken into account (and there's probably more, I would guess), so it seems a bit optimistic that the NM log would get more weight in the algorithm than other factors.  As an example, I see a lot of NM logs with "logsheet wet".   Without any other of the contributing factors to the Health Score, it seems like a single NM log will not impact the score much.   The other issue I see is a lack of accurate DNF logging.  Seems like some folks are happy logging a Find with a log entry of "found magnet/velcro/attachment".

Edited by Touchstone

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Aside from occasional newbies who think "I can't find it" = must be gone = NA what's the problem? CO getting pissy because they have to check on their cache a little more often?

Yes, that or the reviewer archives it. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

That's kind of a big jump to assume.  The NM Attribute is one of 5 stated log types/circumstances taken into account (and there's probably more, I would guess), so it seems a bit optimistic that the NM log would get more weight in the algorithm than other factors.  As an example, I see a lot of NM logs with "logsheet wet".   Without any other of the contributing factors to the Health Score, it seems like a single NM log will not impact the score much.   The other issue I see is a lack of accurate DNF logging.  Seems like some folks are happy logging a Find with a log entry of "found magnet/velcro/attachment".

I would've hoped that an NM would be a much stronger indicator that a cache needed maintenance than a DNF or it just not having been found for a long time, but from all the examples I've seen posted, it seems not. And I still don't know why NA is included in the logs it looks at since, once a cache has had one of them, it's already in the hands of the reviewer to either accept and disable/archive the cache or dismiss, and if it's dismissed it shouldn't count against a cache's health score.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
On 3/1/2018 at 11:47 AM, dprovan said:

My area used to have regular NMs and NAs when there were problems, but now it's rare for even an NM, and NAs are a thing of the past.

So your area / community isn't the Utopia you've had us believe it is after all.

It was the Utopia I told you about, but things like the CHS have made it ordinary. That's the point.

10 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Sorry to hear that your area has fallen into the same decline the rest of us have experienced.

Not half as sorry as I am. So far the cache quality's as good as it's ever been, and there's still a reasonable feeling of community, but now that it's all about GS delivering a product, I figure it's just a matter of time before my caching experience will be as bad as yours is already.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, dprovan said:
11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:
On 3/1/2018 at 7:47 PM, dprovan said:

My area used to have regular NMs and NAs when there were problems, but now it's rare for even an NM, and NAs are a thing of the past.

So your area / community isn't the Utopia you've had us believe it is after all.

It was the Utopia I told you about, but things like the CHS have made it ordinary. That's the point.

11 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Sorry to hear that your area has fallen into the same decline the rest of us have experienced.

Not half as sorry as I am. So far the cache quality's as good as it's ever been, and there's still a reasonable feeling of community, but now that it's all about GS delivering a product, I figure it's just a matter of time before my caching experience will be as bad as yours is already.

Yeah - when I wrote that I'd have put money on you blaming it all on the CHS score.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Why not? It's easier now to log NM or NA when logging a Find or DNF thanks to the changed logging screen on the website.

I contest that it's easier with the new logging screen. In addition, the new logging screen encourages "problem reports" without explanation, since it's just a flag you set. Sure, the people that know what it means to log an NM or NA can used the new interface because they understand what's going on, but people that don't already know about NMs and NAs from when they were separate logs types tend to just check the box and only describe the problem vaguely in passing because they're focused on describing the find.

 But that doesn't really matter. My point is that fewer people feel any responsibility to log NMs and NAs regardless of how easy it is.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I assumed that if CHS is working, in 6 months I would see a meaningful decrease in the number of red wrenches. 

Do these numbers point to the CHS having little effect? Or perhaps it means that CHS has a significant effect because the numbers are not rising?

Does a steady state of red wrenches mean that as the red wrenches are cleared, other caches are being flagged at an equal rate? 

If there's a steady state, what does that suggest about maintenance and CHS?

A decrease in NM attributes can also be partially attributed to the fact that the OM log type is the default when submitting a log for one of your hides. I'm sure many of us have seen a CO that meant to post a note saying that they'd check on their cache, but instead logged an OM and incorrectly cleared the NM attribute too soon.

I don't think you'll be able to make any meaningful inferences with respect to the CHS based on the number of NM attributes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Yeah - when I wrote that I'd have put money on you blaming it all on the CHS score.

The CHS is a symptom. What I blame it on is this notion that there's a terrible quality problem (a.k.a., all caches must be perfect), and that GS is responsible for making quality better.

I only point to the CHS now because I told you when it came out that it would have this effect, and it has.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The CHS is a symptom. What I blame it on is this notion that there's a terrible quality problem (a.k.a., all caches must be perfect), and that GS is responsible for making quality better.

I only point to the CHS now because I told you when it came out that it would have this effect, and it has.

How very convenient for you.

A self fulfilling prophecy.

Your alleged utopian community robustly defends cache quality - there's no need for the CHS and it should be abandoned as a failed experiment.

Your alleged utopian community declines into dystopia - the CHS caused that to happen and it should be abandoned as a failed experiment.

Or you could just accept that your community isn't the special case you've been claiming it to be and that really, despite protracted claims to the contrary, it's no different to most other places that people have numerously described in previous threads.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The CHS is a symptom. What I blame it on is this notion that there's a terrible quality problem (a.k.a., all caches must be perfect), and that GS is responsible for making quality better.

I only point to the CHS now because I told you when it came out that it would have this effect, and it has.

A steady state of red wrenches/crosses may mean CHS has had no effect on encouraging better cache maintenance. As it clears out the abandoned caches, more caches get flagged for maintenance, keeping my PQ list at a relatively steady number. It could mean people are using NMs and NAs. Or at least that those who were using NMs and NAs continue to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

I don't change my logging habits based on whether it ruffles someone's feathers.  Grow up and thicken your skin a bit, I say.  If I see a cache needs maintenance, I say it.  If I think a cache needs to be archived (or needs reviewer intervention), I say it.  If people choose to be offended by this stuff, that's THEIR problem, not mine.

Well, it could be your problem if you're being a jerk about it. If you posted a grouchy NM about my cache instead of trying to be helpful, I wouldn't like that, and my skin is plenty thick.

Anyway, COs that react poorly to reasonable NMs and NAs are a fundamental problem, and I wish GS would spend more time solving that. COs that are jerks cause trouble even after you've institutionalized problem reports.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Or you could just accept that your community isn't the special case you've been claiming it to be and that really, despite protracted claims to the contrary, it's no different to most other places that people have numerously described in previous threads.

Honestly, I'm not following you. Are you thinking that because the CHS is being used in my community, then that makes it obvious my community had a problem to begin with?

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Honestly, I'm not following you. Are you thinking that because the CHS is being used in my community, then that makes it obvious my community had a problem to begin with?

No. What I'm thinking is that we should continue to take your claims of superiority with a large pinch of salt.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Well, it could be your problem if you're being a jerk about it. If you posted a grouchy NM about my cache instead of trying to be helpful, I wouldn't like that, and my skin is plenty thick.

You could, you know, quit pre-judging me based on my nickname.  

 

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, this is already getting side-tracked and devolving into personal attacks on the first page?

Congratulations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Wow, this is already getting side-tracked and devolving into personal attacks on the first page?

Congratulations.

Not side tracked at all.

The thread is entitled CGS score, Is it making a difference?

It seems that dprovan's answer to that question is yes - it's led to those people in my community who used to make robust and productive use of NM's and NA's no longer doing so.

But thanks for judging.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, J Grouchy said:

You could, you know, quit pre-judging me based on my nickname.  

 

I did what? Sheesh. It was a hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

Yes, that or the reviewer archives it. 

If a Reviewer archives a cache because they were alerted the cache was piling up DNF/NM with no owner action then that seems pretty reasonable. Usually the cache only gets Disabled, unless the owner's profile indicates they've not bee active for years.

Besides, caches can be unarchived.

So I'm still not seeing a real problem other than whiny COs.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

So I'm still not seeing a real problem other than whiny COs.

 

Ain't that enough? :) I just don't like to play that way when logging a DNF, NM, or NA results in the CO being negative about it on the cache page. :(

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If a Reviewer archives a cache because they were alerted the cache was piling up DNF/NM with no owner action then that seems pretty reasonable

I still can't find anything in the guidelines requiring the CO take action in response to DNFs. Not all caches are instant smilies, some are actually difficult to find and DNFs are part of the normal experience. I've yet to be convinced a DNF should be treated the same as an NM, and that a few DNFs without the CO doing something requires reviewer intervention.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×