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

CHS score. Is it making a difference?

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
12 hours ago, Nomex said:
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

Reviewers have told us that GS has told them they are responsible for policing cache quality and that each reviewer is required to have a reviewer process that uses the CHS to identify bad caches and consider unilateral action.

Citation needed.

 

Geez!  I thought I'd missed something, so I went back and checked the Volunteer Expectation page, and I didn't see any reference to the CHS or "quality".

 

Did you turn on your special text highlighting function that shows the hidden fine print only visible to reviewers?  I mean, it has to be there, so you must be missing something.

 

(likewise, I've never heard from a reviewer that they are required to use the CHS tool, and on the contrary, have only ever heard that the tool has helped them do their job; of course, that's all *I* have heard, so I'm not speaking omnisciently)

 

I think this might be what dprovan was referring to, where Keystone said, "To clarify, all reviewers worldwide are obligated to have a system for monitoring caches with low health scores."

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Nomex said:
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

Reviewers have told us that GS has told them they are responsible for policing cache quality and that each reviewer is required to have a reviewer process that uses the CHS to identify bad caches and consider unilateral action.

Citation needed.

 

Geez!  I thought I'd missed something, so I went back and checked the Volunteer Expectation page, and I didn't see any reference to the CHS or "quality".

 

Obviously I'd have no idea what's in the secret documents any more than I'd have any idea idea what is said and how to reviewers through other channels. I just read a reviewer say that the reviewers had been directed to use the CHS to find and deal with caches with low CHS. I had no reason to doubt him or write down his name for later reference. I believed it because it fit what I've seen: it neatly explains why you've started unilaterally reacting to caches that have no NA posted but, from what I would guess, have a low CHS. There's no local problem with cache quality, so I can't explain it any other way. Only you can.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I think this might be what dprovan was referring to, where Keystone said, "To clarify, all reviewers worldwide are obligated to have a system for monitoring caches with low health scores."

 

And the way I interpret that is the tool was made for reviewers, they can use it, they should use it, and since everyone does and it doesn't sound like anyone has a problem with it or insists on not using it, it's not a written rule that every reviewer must use the tool. Everyone does and loves it. So, yeah they're obligated to, because it makes their job easier and no one's complaining. Thus Nomex's comment.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And the way I interpret that is the tool was made for reviewers, they can use it, they should use it, and since everyone does and it doesn't sound like anyone has a problem with it or insists on not using it, it's not a written rule that every reviewer must use the tool. Everyone does and loves it. So, yeah they're obligated to, because it makes their job easier and no one's complaining. Thus Nomex's comment.

Wow. "Obligated" means it's optional. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating. The words mean whatever you choose them to mean.

 

But, anyway, it doesn't really make any difference to my point whether the reviewers have to use the CHS or not, nor whether those instructions were formally written down or just implied in some reviewer bulletin. All I know is that  since the CHS became public knowledge, the reviewer in my area (who shall remain nameless) started regularly disabling and archiving caches before an NA had been posted, so NAs have become obsolete here. Before that, NAs were used regularly to achieve their designed effect.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, dprovan said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

And the way I interpret that is the tool was made for reviewers, they can use it, they should use it, and since everyone does and it doesn't sound like anyone has a problem with it or insists on not using it, it's not a written rule that every reviewer must use the tool. Everyone does and loves it. So, yeah they're obligated to, because it makes their job easier and no one's complaining. Thus Nomex's comment.

Wow. "Obligated" means it's optional. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating. The words mean whatever you choose them to mean.

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Wow. "Obligated" means it's optional. No wonder we have so much trouble communicating. The words mean whatever you choose them to mean.

 
ob·li·gate
verb
past tense: obligated; past participle: obligated
ˈäbləɡāt/
  1. bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Inmountains said:

Color me confused!  How did the OP run a PQ in September, 2018? :)

 It was a typo. I thought I had fixed it. It's fixed now. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/21/2018 at 11:31 AM, dprovan said:

And I'm not worried about it, nor is anyone else in my community. That's my definition of not being scads. (That's way less that 10%, right?)

 

Great examples to make my point, by the way. Two are simple log problems, so hardly warranting a red wrench to begin with. The third is an old classic that's been treated gently since before I started geocaching in 2010. If those caches cause anyone to drop out of geocaching, they definitely shouldn't be geocaching. I assume that's why the reviewer didn't even bother to react for once.

 

I love it when people tell me there's a terrible problem in my area and I should feel disgusted to geocache here. It makes me realize those people have blown the problem out of proportion in their area, too, which makes me start to doubt there are any areas where there's actually a problem. Yet here we are with yet another thread with lots of people proposing lots of new rules to fix the problem that doesn't really exist.

How about a new option "Need log maintenance"  or something like that. Also allow future finders to indicate a fix for this problem. Most cachers don't have an issue with this type of maintenance or adding a new baggie. 

 

The NM log really needs to be an action required like you container is missing or broken. If the flag is not removed an automated process is followed by the system. Can't tell you how frustrating it is when you show up at a GZ only to read "I found this cache a year ago, it has been muggled" as a note along with multiple DNF logs.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, MNTA said:

How about a new option "Need log maintenance"  or something like that. Also allow future finders to indicate a fix for this problem. Most cachers don't have an issue with this type of maintenance or adding a new baggie. 

 

The NM log really needs to be an action required like you container is missing or broken. If the flag is not removed an automated process is followed by the system. Can't tell you how frustrating it is when you show up at a GZ only to read "I found this cache a year ago, it has been muggled" as a note along with multiple DNF logs.

 

Cache owners are not supposed to litter. They agree to be responsible* for what they leave behind and when they no longer want to watch over their cache and listing they either need to officially adopt it to someone or retrieve it and archive it. As finders, we have tools to use to practice good stewardship. 

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

  • Visit the geocache regularly.
  • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
  • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
  • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

Share this post


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

 

Cache owners are not supposed to litter. They agree to be responsible* for what they leave behind and when they no longer want to watch over their cache and listing they either need to officially adopt it to someone or retrieve it and archive it. As finders, we have tools to use to practice good stewardship. 

 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

  • Visit the geocache regularly.
  • Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
  • Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
  • Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

That's why it takes three plus months to have an obviously missing cache with an CO that is obviously no longer playing the game removed from the database. 

 

Because it's written down does not mean people follow it. Don't get me wrong I agree with what you wrote. I am not afraid to file NM/NA logs filed close to 10 in the past 2 weeks. Of these only 1 saw almost immediate action by the CO.  What is there now is frankly not working in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MNTA said:

That's why it takes three plus months to have an obviously missing cache with an CO that is obviously no longer playing the game removed from the database. 

 

Because it's written down does not mean people follow it. Don't get me wrong I agree with what you wrote. I am not afraid to file NM/NA logs filed close to 10 in the past 2 weeks. Of these only 1 saw almost immediate action by the CO.  What is there now is frankly not working in my opinion.

 

Logging an NA (as opposed to an NM) shouldn't take three-plus months for anything to happen. Here, at least, the reviewer will disable the listing within a few days, with a request for the CO to remedy the problem within four weeks. If nothing happens within that period, the cache is archived.

Share this post


Link to post

And sometimes I wonder.  Some COs seem to be exempt from CHS.  A large series of C&D caches.  Many with over a thousand finds.  All seem to be throwdowns!  No maintenance ever done, despite NMs.  Or a CO with hundreds of hides.  Lots of recycles.  New  event?  Recycle all the caches in the area!  NM for a micro listed as a small with a soaking wet log?  Nothing happens.  Sad that some COs seems to be exempt.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, MNTA said:

That's why it takes three plus months to have an obviously missing cache with an CO that is obviously no longer playing the game removed from the database. 

 

Because it's written down does not mean people follow it. Don't get me wrong I agree with what you wrote. I am not afraid to file NM/NA logs filed close to 10 in the past 2 weeks. Of these only 1 saw almost immediate action by the CO.  What is there now is frankly not working in my opinion. 

Or it could be the local Reviewers don't agree with your assessment of the situation.  They are not required to respond when they don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post

With more than 10,000 caches in the metro area with 4 volunteer reviewer unless things are automated relying on human intervention to clean things up is a very tall order. T

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MNTA said:

With more than 10,000 caches in the metro area with 4 volunteer reviewer unless things are automated relying on human intervention to clean things up is a very tall order. T

 

We have one reviewer for the whole state of NSW, which has about 16,000 caches, yet it isn't a problem here.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

In our area, some caches that really needed attention - with logs reporting the fact -  to which a particular CO was not responding ... sort of  (saying he'd be getting to it), were temporarily disabled by the local reviewer. The caches were immediately spiffed up / replaced and re-enabled. I assume the disabling was the result of a ping from the CHS. There are a couple more that I noticed the same thing occur. (All these were on my watchlist.) Some COs did not respond, and the beastly caches were archived.

 

So I'm going to say that it's working, at least in our area.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Question: Does anybody know if *all* counters are re-set after an adoption? I noticed that the NAs on a cache I adopted (adoption result of the NAs, actually) remain in the Log Visit types summary. I know NMs reset after OMs, but are those historic NAs counting against the CHS of this cache?

 

( I don't remember seeing mention of this in the CHS definition.  If I should post this question elsewhere, please forgive and point me in the right direction.)

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, VAVAPAM said:

Question: Does anybody know if *all* counters are re-set after an adoption? I noticed that the NAs on a cache I adopted (adoption result of the NAs, actually) remain in the Log Visit types summary. I know NMs reset after OMs, but are those historic NAs counting against the CHS of this cache?

 

( I don't remember seeing mention of this in the CHS definition.  If I should post this question elsewhere, please forgive and point me in the right direction.)

 

I think the simple answer is nobody knows outside of HQ. I'm still puzzled why the CHS even looks at NA logs, since once one's logged, the reviewer either dismisses it, in which case it should be ignored, or disables the cache and gives the CO a month to fix the problem. If the problem's fixed, there's no longer a problem, and if it's not, the cache gets archived. I don't see where the CHS could possibly get involved in that process. Having said that, I presume that if the CO adopts out the cache and the adoptee fixes the problem, the reviewer would be satisfied with that outcome. In the course of those events, the adoptee should have logged an OM at the point where the problem's fixed, and there've been hints from reviewers that logging an OM will wipe the CHS's slate. Whether historical NAs are taken into account when it sees a future DNF, though, who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I think the simple answer is nobody knows outside of HQ. I'm still puzzled why the CHS even looks at NA logs, since once one's logged, the reviewer either dismisses it, in which case it should be ignored, or disables the cache and gives the CO a month to fix the problem. If the problem's fixed, there's no longer a problem, and if it's not, the cache gets archived. I don't see where the CHS could possibly get involved in that process. Having said that, I presume that if the CO adopts out the cache and the adoptee fixes the problem, the reviewer would be satisfied with that outcome. In the course of those events, the adoptee should have logged an OM at the point where the problem's fixed, and there've been hints from reviewers that logging an OM will wipe the CHS's slate. Whether historical NAs are taken into account when it sees a future DNF, though, who knows.

 

Okay, that's the way I was reading it; good to get a second opinion. Thank you, barefootjeff.

Share this post


Link to post

Given that I've heard from people who have been picked up by the CHS on just one or two DNF's on their perfectly fine cache, I can't help but wonder how this one persists.

 

The CO hasn't found a cache since 2013, last placed one in 2011 but last logged into the website in June this year - which is fairly recent.

 

November 13 2016 - Found It log reports container full of water

 

April 17 2017 - Found It log reports container wet and logbook unsignable

 

April 22 2017 - Found It log reports log dripping with water

 

May 9 2017 - Found It log reports log is very soggy

 

June 21 2017 - Found it log reports box full of water and log unusable followed by Needs Maintenance log

 

August 10 2017 - Found It log reports cache really waterlogged

 

August 11 2017 - Found It log reports cache was wet

 

September 24 2017 - Found It log reports contents soaked and old log book - followed by a Needs Maintenance log

 

January 31 2018 - Found It log reports container awash

 

February 1 2018 - Needs Maintenance log - container damaged

 

February 25 2018 - Found It log reports cache totally waterlogged

 

April 9 2018 - Found It log reports container full to brim with water, logbook sodden, in a sorry state for about a year - followed by a detailed Needs Maintenance log with photograph

 

July 12 2018 - Found It log reports cache waterlogged.

 

 

Doesn't look like the CHS has had any positive effect on this cache.

 

https://coord.info/GC2B2XF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Team Microdot
typo

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Given that I've heard from people who have been picked up by the CHS on just one or two DNF's on their perfectly fine cache, I can't help but wonder how this one persists.

It seems to me that since the CO is the only one who gets the automated CHS suggestion email (although reviewers may have access to CHS), the cache owner may just very well shrug it off. And until other cachers submit NAs, its possible that a less-assertive local reviewer might not get involved. 

Share this post


Link to post

If the CO is inactive, they could ignore emails and we wouldn't know.

Nothing further will happen until a reviewer steps in. I would say that cache indicates there's lag on the reviewer part. Not a problem with the CHS, which could be flying red flags in the reviewer tools that just being ignored.  As far as we know the CHS doesn't do anything except send a nudge email and help prompt reviewers. I wouldn't be surprised that since the cache is now called out publicly, a reviewer will step in and do something. Maybe not. Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

 

Thanks for the feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

As we are discussing it, someone just posted a Found it log on it today.

Share this post


Link to post

... and the algorithm isn't smart enough to read a "found it" log that contains criticism like "container is filled with water."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Keystone said:

... and the algorithm isn't smart enough to read a "found it" log that contains criticism like "container is filled with water."

Which makes sense to me that the algorithm, at most, can only result in a nudge email; while it takes the human touch of a reviewer to decide whether or not further action is warranted.

Edited by Team Christiansen
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

... and the algorithm isn't smart enough to read a "found it" log that contains criticism like "container is filled with water."

 

55 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

But how is it that 4 NMs since June 2017 not trigger the CHS and get a reviewer's attention?

 

9a5a98fa-cf7c-4e9f-a096-78f8a4ff11f5_l.j

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Keystone said:
24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

 

 

Yet there have been 4 unanswered NM logs, no OM logs.

 

The CHS score is not particularly useful if that is the case. Very few people will log NMs and the ratio of found to NM will almost always be in favor of found, even when most of the found logs indicate a problem.

 

I think it's much better when reviewers sweep for NMs or do a keyword search (e.g. mold). I'm appreciating the Ontario reviewers a lot for using multiple tools to address troubled caches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Reviewers become aware of Cache Health Score issues once the score drops below a defined threshold and a notice is sent to the CO.  In the example posted by Team Microdot, the problem is that the "found it" logs affect the score positively, while the "needs maintenance" logs affect the score negatively.  On balance, that cache is just a hair above the threshold that would trigger the email notice.

 

Just wondering, does this mean you have to keep logging the same NM over and over again to compensate for each subsequent find? That seems counter-intuitive, as I would have thought that one NM with no response from the CO within a reasonable time frame would've been sufficient to suggest there might be a problem.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think the CHS is kicking in in our area (well some parts of Oz). I noticed the reviewer disabling of about half a dozen caches this week that had several DNF logs and a single, unresponded NM. I looked at each of the caches and saw that the NMs appeared justified.

Share this post


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

I think it's much better when reviewers sweep for NMs or do a keyword search (e.g. mold). I'm appreciating the Ontario reviewers a lot for using multiple tools to address troubled caches.

 

Yikes, I hope the reviewers here aren't doing keyword searches. In a log I wrote a couple of days ago I said, "A pity it can't be better maintained." I wasn't referring to the cache, which was in pristine condition, but to the walking track I'd used to get to GZ, which could do with some long overdue TLC from the park management.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yikes, I hope the reviewers here aren't doing keyword searches. In a log I wrote a couple of days ago I said, "A pity it can't be better maintained." I wasn't referring to the cache, which was in pristine condition, but to the walking track I'd used to get to GZ, which could do with some long overdue TLC from the park management.

 

I think reviewers can read though.

 

Unless they are dogs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Yikes, I hope the reviewers here aren't doing keyword searches. In a log I wrote a couple of days ago I said, "A pity it can't be better maintained." I wasn't referring to the cache, which was in pristine condition, but to the walking track I'd used to get to GZ, which could do with some long overdue TLC from the park management.

 

I think reviewers can read though.

 

Unless they are dogs.

 

I was more concerned with wasting the reviewer's time, forcing them to read through my long-winded log to see that it was a false alarm. In a similar vein, I can imagine logs I've written along the lines of "everything in the forest was wet after the recent rains, with the many fallen logs covered in moss and fungus." Would the combination of wet, log and fungus set off alarms? Maybe it's safer just to stick to TFTC.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I was more concerned with wasting the reviewer's time, forcing them to read through my long-winded log to see that it was a false alarm. In a similar vein, I can imagine logs I've written along the lines of "everything in the forest was wet after the recent rains, with the many fallen logs covered in moss and fungus." Would the combination of wet, log and fungus set off alarms? Maybe it's safer just to stick to TFTC.

 

Or maybe it's safer to believe they are smart enough to work out for themselves how best to achieve their objectives and let them get on with it in their own way rather than invest time dreaming up intricate ways in which systems might fail.

 

The fact that no system is perfect is not news.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Or maybe it's safer to believe they are smart enough to work out for themselves how best to achieve their objectives and let them get on with it in their own way rather than invest time dreaming up intricate ways in which systems might fail.

 

The fact that no system is perfect is not news.

 

It's just that if there are certain words being used to identify problem caches, like wet, water, fungus, broken (I live next to Broken Bay so that last one might be a problem), then it'd be nice to know so I can avoid using those words in my logs when describing things other than the cache. I'm not trying to tell the reviewers how to do their job, I'm just trying to avoid setting off false alarms.

Share this post


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

But how is it that 4 NMs since June 2017 not trigger the CHS and get a reviewer's attention?

The more important question is why no one posted an NA. That would get the reviewer's attention. After all, the whole reason this example is being brought up is because it's absolutely clear to everyone, including anyone posting an NM, that this cache should be archived, so why hasn't one of the people posting an NM posted an NA instead? In my area, until the CHS was implemented, there wouldn't have been a second NM, just an NA pointing out that the needed maintenance reported by the first NM hasn't been performed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I was more concerned with wasting the reviewer's time, forcing them to read through my long-winded log to see that it was a false alarm. In a similar vein, I can imagine logs I've written along the lines of "everything in the forest was wet after the recent rains, with the many fallen logs covered in moss and fungus." Would the combination of wet, log and fungus set off alarms? Maybe it's safer just to stick to TFTC.

 

It's probably a matter of a quick Ctrl>F would work, plus a quick read of the sentence to see what's up.

 

I expect that many reviewers don't mind the process and don't consider sweeping (or the occasional keyword search) a waste of time or burden,  otherwise, I expect they'd quit (or ignore NMs--at least in my area they do not ignore long strings of unresolved NMs). 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

The more important question is why no one posted an NA

 

Because most people don't want to rock the boat. They feel they have no authority. Their NM or NA is sometimes greeted with public anger towards them. Team Microdot provided an example. Reviewers have clout. They are given the authority to uphold the rules. 

Edited by L0ne.R
typo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

 In my area, until the CHS was implemented, there wouldn't have been a second NM, just an NA pointing out that the needed maintenance reported by the first NM hasn't been performed.

1

 

From what I've seen after running a PQ your reviewer is on top of things. The first few on the list have an NM followed by no other visitors for 6 months, then followed by a reviewer disable. So it looks like sweeping for NMs is happening in your area, probably because NAs aren't happening. Do you follow up your NMs with NAs? 

Share this post


Link to post

Reviewers who voluntarily undertake to search for troubled caches via keyword searches most likely do so using tools in GSAK.  I keep a complete database of the two states where I review, for this purpose (among others, like -- FINDING caches).  It's fairly easy to weed out false positives.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Because most people don't want to rock the boat. They feel they have no authority. Their NM or NA is sometimes greeted with public anger towards them. Team Microdot provided an example. Reviewers have clout. They are given the authority to uphold the rules. 

I don't see how your guess squares with the fact that several people posted NMs. The boat is already well and truly rocked.

 

But more importantly, if people feel threatened, then that's a much more important problem for GS to address than cache quality. Improving cache quality isn't going to get rid of bullies.

 

5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

From what I've seen after running a PQ your reviewer is on top of things. The first few on the list have an NM followed by no other visitors for 6 months, then followed by a reviewer disable. So it looks like sweeping for NMs is happening in your area, probably because NAs aren't happening. Do you follow up your NMs with NAs? 

I believe I mentioned that people rarely post NAs now that the reviewers are known to have taken over that role.

 

No, I don't follow up my NMs with NAs. I've said everything I know about the cache in my NM. It's up to someone else to look at my NM and how much time has passed and decide if an NA is then warranted. There's no reason for me to feel like I have to do more than I already did. Before the CHS, another geocacher would normally post an NA within a month or two of an NM.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love it when people use caches in my area as an example of how CHS is improving things since there's never been a quality problem in my area, so things are no better with the reviewers in charge because there wasn't really room for improvement to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

No, I don't follow up my NMs with NAs. I've said everything I know about the cache in my NM. It's up to someone else to look at my NM and how much time has passed and decide if an NA is then warranted. There's no reason for me to feel like I have to do more than I already did. Before the CHS, another geocacher would normally post an NA within a month or two of an NM.


This unwillingness to take responsibility for a cache which either needs fixing or removing from the game is one of the things that sees them stagger along as junk for months on end.

 

Even when there exist people who are willing to load the ammo it seems that nobody wants to pull the trigger.

 

Even the people in your local area seem to be kicking back and taking full advantage of the fact that the reviewer will now step up and take ultimate responsibility.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I love it when people use caches in my area as an example of how CHS is improving things since there's never been a quality problem in my area, so things are no better with the reviewers in charge because there wasn't really room for improvement to begin with.

 

That was then and this is now - where that seemingly perfect ecosystem has seemingly completely broken down.

 

 

Share this post


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

Because most people don't want to rock the boat. They feel they have no authority. Their NM or NA is sometimes greeted with public anger towards them. Team Microdot provided an example.

 

Yes - he did - and dprovan, fairly effectively I thought, demonstrated the cynical and unfriendly attitude - even from cachers other than the CO - which leads people not only to avoid raising issues with a cache - however politely - but to actively withdraw the issues they've previously raised in order to avoid that public anger.

 

I thought this was a community based activity but these days it all to often seems more like a clan activity.

 

Share this post


Link to post

In my area there are still occasional NAs posted. Usually from the same handful of people, and typically on caches that the CO is obviously inactive, and a cache is disabled or has multiple requests for maintenance and nothing has happened for months. In those cases the feeling I get is the it's on the edge of reviewer action but they're waiting for some sign of 'life', and usually it's the NA that pushes it over the edge. And it's not posted by someone who visited gz, it's posted by someone who sees the state of the listing and 'suggests' that the cache should be archived due to lack of activity, and it's clearly not being found. Almost immediately I see it either disabled and moving along to archival, or just archived.

 

So we do still have people posting NAs here. (just, usually wondering why a reviewer hasn't already taken action :P)

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, dprovan said:

II've said it before and I'll say it again: I love it when people use caches in my area as an example of how CHS is improving things since there's never been a quality problem in my area, so things are no better with the reviewers in charge because there wasn't really room for improvement to begin with.

 

Consider yourself lucky then

 

5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That was then and this is now - where that seemingly perfect ecosystem has seemingly completely broken down.

 

 

 

I think this is really where we are at today. I for one appreciate the effort of GS and volunteer reviewers it can be a huge overwhelming task and they are trying. Doing nothing really is not an option for all parties involved GS, reviewers, and cachers. So file those DNF/NM/NA logs be polite, be thankful.

 

But when an area turns into a homeless camp or cache has 6 inches of water in it action should occur. My favorite is the logs that say in Poison Oak grove, I see the GZ there is a perfectly great spot 5 feet away, but no maintenance by the CO. I digress.

 

Caches have a natural lifespan it can be short it can be long, some will last with little or no maintenance others won't last the winter. Those COs that respond to even the first DNF or note I really appreciate, sometimes I simply can not find them too there is no problem here. Others don't and sometimes good or bad cachers step in. Sometimes the reviewers step in too.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, thebruce0 said:

In my area there are still occasional NAs posted. Usually from the same handful of people, and typically on caches that the CO is obviously inactive, and a cache is disabled or has multiple requests for maintenance and nothing has happened for months. In those cases the feeling I get is the it's on the edge of reviewer action but they're waiting for some sign of 'life', and usually it's the NA that pushes it over the edge. And it's not posted by someone who visited gz, it's posted by someone who sees the state of the listing and 'suggests' that the cache should be archived due to lack of activity, and it's clearly not being found. Almost immediately I see it either disabled and moving along to archival, or just archived.

 

So we do still have people posting NAs here. (just, usually wondering why a reviewer hasn't already taken action :P)

 

I quit logging NA's after logging one under the set of circumstances you describe - clear the cache was in a state and well known - by caching community and volunteer reviewer alike - that the CO had long since quit the game and a number of their other caches had already been archived over a period of time for the same reasons.

 

My NA was rejected on the basis I hadn't recently been to GZ.

 

Another cacher who had the login credentials of the retired cacher logged in as them and had a bit of a rant about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I quit logging NA's after logging one under the set of circumstances you describe - clear the cache was in a state and well known - by caching community and volunteer reviewer alike - that the CO had long since quit the game and a number of their other caches had already been archived over a period of time for the same reasons.

 

My NA was rejected on the basis I hadn't recently been to GZ.

 

Another cacher who had the login credentials of the retired cacher logged in as them and had a bit of a rant about it.

 

 

Stand up to bullies you did the right thing. If it gets too bad that's what the reviewers and GS are for. 

 

Hopefully if you'd do the same today things would be different. Times do change.

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

×