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

CHS score. Is it making a difference?

Recommended Posts

What is the answer to the question? 42?

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

Is that the rattle of sabres I hear? Or just wooden spoons?

I guess "reasoned discussion" isn't a choice?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, arisoft said:

What is the answer to the question? 42?

 

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I guess "reasoned discussion" isn't a choice?

 

I thought so.

 

But then you opened by suggesting that people wanting to change the wording of a canned message to something more akin to the sentiment they'd prefer to convey was somehow passive aggressive which, to me, sounded like nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

 

But then you opened by suggesting that people wanting to change the wording of a canned message to something more akin to the sentiment they'd prefer to convey was somehow passive aggressive which, to me, sounded like nonsense.

I think it's pretty clear why "needs reviewer attention" is passive-argessive when you're suggesting a cache be archived, but feel free to explain why it makes sense. As I tried to explain, the only explanation I can see is that people think there's some magic power reviewers have that doesn't involve killing the cache off. If I'm right, the solution is to explain what's going on to them, not pretend they're asking for something less than archival when they post a "needs reviewer attention".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, dprovan said:

Am I understanding this case correctly? Are you saying that what happened here is that the reviewer, for unstated reasons which you believe are invalid, thwarted someone's legitimate attempt to use the existing tools ?

 

The CHS solution we're considering gives that same reviewer even more control and cuts the thwarted seeker out of the picture entirely. Don't you see the problem with that?

 

I may be wrong but I believe that edexter filed the 48 NAs without visiting any of the caches. If so, I agree wholeheartedly with the irritated COs and the reviewer. It doesn't matter what a person perceives a cache's condition to be in, he or she should not file a NA without making it to ground zero and getting an idea of what might actually be going on with the cache.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe just me, but I see "Needs Archive" as a finder saying they're all for just killing the cache off.

 - Posts saying they've left a couple NAs and "the Reviewer still hasn't archived it yet" should show that true for some.

 

Reviewer Attention seems (to me) to be, "This cache can still be saved, maybe with a Reviewer's help".

Both still have the Reviewer going  through their process,   just may be possible that a CO won't feel so bitter over it's meaning (if the CO's still active)  .  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Maybe just me, but I see "Needs Archive" as a finder saying they're all for just killing the cache off.

 - Posts saying they've left a couple NAs and "the Reviewer still hasn't archived it yet" should show that true for some.

 

Reviewer Attention seems (to me) to be, "This cache can still be saved, maybe with a Reviewer's help".

Both still have the Reviewer going  through their process,   just may be possible that a CO won't feel so bitter over it's meaning (if the CO's still active)  .  

 

I agree!

 

NA does not guarantee removal but does guarantee action.

 

That action unfortunately is usually archival but in a small number maybe 5-10% the CO does perform maintenance and get the cache back in findable shape. Which to me is the ultimate goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think it's pretty clear why "needs reviewer attention" is passive-argessive when you're suggesting a cache be archived, but feel free to explain why it makes sense. As I tried to explain, the only explanation I can see is that people think there's some magic power reviewers have that doesn't involve killing the cache off. If I'm right, the solution is to explain what's going on to them, not pretend they're asking for something less than archival when they post a "needs reviewer attention".

 

If you're right and every Needs Reviewer Attention log is an act of passive aggression then it must also hold true that every Needs Archived log is a deliberately aggressive act.

 

That could well explain why those in your previously utopian local community have now breathed a sigh of relief and left the local reviewer to use the CHS to identify and deal with caches which need archiving as they can now relax and stop being so aggressive.

 

It also further reinforces the need for the CHS if everyone treats NA logs as an act of war.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 15/07/2018 at 5:36 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

Since this thread is about the CHS, I'll focus on that. I was surprised, perhaps dumbfounded even, to learn that it effectively turns its back on an outstanding NM if the cache continues to have finds logged on it.

 

 That surprised me a great deal too,  it seems a strange decision . So the red wrench stays, the cache 'needs maintenance' until the CO posts an owner maintenance log, but the CHS rescinds the NM negative score after a find ? Is that officially confirmed ?

If so, the CHS needs maintenance.

As we know from the found = DNF threads , all finds do is confirm the cache (or part of the cache, or a throwdown or a bit of velcro  ) is (probably) there . If this is the CHS scoring system, then every cache with an NM anyone finds should have another NM posted by them, and it must be after they log the found it, not before . Crazy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

I may be wrong but I believe that edexter filed the 48 NAs without visiting any of the caches. If so, I agree wholeheartedly with the irritated COs and the reviewer. It doesn't matter what a person perceives a cache's condition to be in, he or she should not file a NA without making it to ground zero and getting an idea of what might actually be going on with the cache.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. It almost never makes sense to visit GZ when posting an NA because to justify an NA, there needs to be plenty of evidence in the logs, so much that visiting GZ won't typically add anything.

 

Having said that, I can easily see someone flipping out about "bad caches" and posting a bunch of NAs which they can't really justify with or without  visit to GZ. I do suspect that's what happened here, and why the reviewer said something, but I've ignored that because the possibility didn't seem relevant to the conversation. Instead, I've taken the example at face value: what if a reviewer took the side of an irresponsible CO? Is giving that reviewer more power an intelligent solution?

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Maybe just me, but I see "Needs Archive" as a finder saying they're all for just killing the cache off.

When I post an NA, I cannot deny it's because I'm "all for just killing the cache off". That doesn't mean my feeling isn't reluctant, nor does it mean that I won't be thrilled if the CO fixes the problem at the last moment. But I post an NA because they've had their chances, so I'm disappointed to have to point out that the cache is out of time.

 

13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Reviewer Attention seems (to me) to be, "This cache can still be saved, maybe with a Reviewer's help".

If the reviewer had some magic power, then it might make sense to add a new log that calls the reviewer in to perform those incantations to fix the cache. But they don't. All a reviewer can do is just what the person posting the NA can do: communicate the problem to the CO, explain why it's a problem, and request action. In other words, post an NM. Well, a reviewer can theoretically threaten the CO, but I think it would be sad for us to treat threats as a normal part of the process.

 

A cache can always be saved. I love that results. But as much as I complain about everyone twisting their knickers about "bad caches", one point they regularly make which I cannot argue with is that there are caches that are obviously not going to be saved, and we need the NA log available for flagging those when we detect them. I don't want that flag diluted by renaming NA to make it sound less precipitous.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

     As I understand it, when an NM log is posted, the expectation is that the CO respond in some way.  When a CO makes no response for a couple of months to a couple of years and when people continue to report issues with the cache, the problem can either be ignored, or somebody can log an NA.  In the 48 NAs I filed, I decided to be "that somebody".  No flipping out was involved.  I just decided to follow procedure in the hope that abandoned caches would be removed from the listing service.   As noted above, this then resulted in 2 caches being repaired by the CO,  4 caches being archived by the CO, and, to date, 13 caches archived by the reviewer.  The remaining 29 caches which were disabled by The Reviewer, are still disabled.  One CO has responded but not repaired the cache and the other 28 have not responded.  As I noted previously, most of these folks have dropped out of the game and are not going to respond.  

     When a problem is obvious (no response by the CO to an NM) you can either ignore it or say something.  If you say something by posting an NA (cache has been reported as damaged, no response by the CO) The Reviewer steps in, disables the cache and gives the CO a couple of months to fix it, and thus far 85% of the COs have continued to not to respond.  Expecting anyone visit to an apparently missing cache prior to posting an evident NA when the CO can't (hasn't) even made the effort to respond on line to an NM log, nevermind visit their own cache to repair it....

     To me this comes down to being a good sport.  In geocaching, if you put out a cache and the expectable happens (it eventually needs repair) and someone takes the time to let you know via a NM log that there is a problem, then your responsibility is to respond in some way.  If you don't,  and you are still actively involved in the game, you aren't being a good sport.   For example a note from the CO that says something like "Thanks, I'm busy right now with the rest of my life. I'll disable it until I can check it out" seems like a reasonable response to me to an NM log that says "Your cache is cracked and everything is soaked"     You can complain, rationalize, or offer suggestions about what the other should do, but if you aren't going to do anything to fix your cache, then there isn't much anyone else can do except log an NA or ignore it.   CHS appears to be an attempt to deal with the reality that many CO's ignore NMs and many folks won't log an NA to get The Reviewer involved.    Nobody likes being told what to do and some folks consider an NA on their cache to be annoying.  The easiest solution appears to me to be for the CO to respond to the NM in some way.  When the cache has been abandoned or the CO is no longer interested in maintaining it, as so far appears to be the case in 45 of the 48 caches I posted an NA on,  then they should be archived.  

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

If you're right and every Needs Reviewer Attention log is an act of passive aggression then it must also hold true that every Needs Archived log is a deliberately aggressive act.

That's not the way passive-aggression works. It's aggressive precisely because it's pretending not to be.

 

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That could well explain why those in your previously utopian local community have now breathed a sigh of relief and left the local reviewer to use the CHS to identify and deal with caches which need archiving as they can now relax and stop being so aggressive.

In my perfect utopian local community, I never saw an aggressive NA and never saw anyone react as if an NA was aggressive. That's probably why I don't actually see the case for "needs reviewer attention" to begin with. When you think about it, the very idea is based on the assumption you're making now that NAs are naturally aggressive, so we need to find a way to pretend they aren't. If we can't shake the notion that NMs and NAs are aggressive to begin with, that's always going to be a lurking problem in geocaching regardless of what the logs are named or who's responsible for doing what.

 

But thanks for trying to explain away the damage done to my local community by making up some absurdly roundabout explanation for something more easily explained by "reviewers take action before the local community considers it justified."

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That's not the way passive-aggression works. It's aggressive precisely because it's pretending not to be.

 

In my perfect utopian local community, I never saw an aggressive NA and never saw anyone react as if an NA was aggressive. That's probably why I don't actually see the case for "needs reviewer attention" to begin with. When you think about it, the very idea is based on the assumption you're making now that NAs are naturally aggressive, so we need to find a way to pretend they aren't. If we can't shake the notion that NMs and NAs are aggressive to begin with, that's always going to be a lurking problem in geocaching regardless of what the logs are named or who's responsible for doing what.

 

But thanks for trying to explain away the damage done to my local community by making up some absurdly roundabout explanation for something more easily explained by "reviewers take action before the local community considers it justified."

 

I think what's happened here is that you've realised how absurdly flawed your original argument was but don't want to admit it.

 

Straddling the fence always leads to discomfort :P

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Sorry, but that's nonsense. It almost never makes sense to visit GZ when posting an NA because to justify an NA, there needs to be plenty of evidence in the logs, so much that visiting GZ won't typically add anything.

 

Having said that, I can easily see someone flipping out about "bad caches" and posting a bunch of NAs which they can't really justify with or without  visit to GZ. I do suspect that's what happened here, and why the reviewer said something, but I've ignored that because the possibility didn't seem relevant to the conversation. Instead, I've taken the example at face value: what if a reviewer took the side of an irresponsible CO? Is giving that reviewer more power an intelligent solution?

 

Nonsense to you, not at all to me. I've had at least one negative personal experience with armchair NA logging. The logs that came in on one of my caches, DNFs mostly, made it sound like the cache may have been missing. To alleviate that goofy NA, I had to schedule a maintenance run, break out the kayak, and spend half a day on the water,. All this to find that the cache was right where it was supposed to be. 

 

Feel free to talk to me at an event, email me, message me, or even call if you have my number, to discuss negative sounding logs on one of my caches. But don't throw out a NM or NA from the comfort of your living room until after you've actually tried finding it. :rolleyes: 

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Nonsense to you, not at all to me. I've had at least one negative personal experience with armchair NA logging. The logs that came in on one of my caches, DNFs mostly, made it sound like the cache may have been missing. To alleviate that goofy NA, I had to schedule a maintenance run, break out the kayak, and spend half a day on the water,. All this to find that the cache was right where it was supposed to be.

It sounds like an NA that could have just as easily been filed even with a visit to GZ by one of the people posting DNFs, so I don't consider it interesting as a counter example. My claim is that a visit to GZ rarely adds information, not that NAs are never wrong.

 

Of course, when I say a visit rarely adds evidence to support an NA, I'm assuming that someone has posted an NM already, and there often are good reasons to visit GZ before filing an NM. That's one of the reasons a visit for an NA is rarely called for: someone already visited GZ to file the NM, and there's no reason for the person filing the NA to doubt the reasons the previous poster justified the NM.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I think what's happened here is that you've realised how absurdly flawed your original argument was but don't want to admit it.

It's hard to see how that could happen since, as usual, you haven't addressed any of the arguments I've made, so there's no real chance of me understanding why you think they're flawed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, dprovan said:

It's hard to see how that could happen since, as usual, you haven't addressed any of the arguments I've made, so there's no real chance of me understanding why you think they're flawed.

 

16 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

When you think about it, the very idea is based on the assumption you're making now that NAs are naturally aggressive, so we need to find a way to pretend they aren't. If we can't shake the notion that NMs and NAs are aggressive to begin with, that's always going to be a lurking problem in geocaching regardless of what the logs are named or who's responsible for doing what.

 

I'm not making that assumption at all.

 

Here's what I said:

 

On 21/07/2018 at 10:22 AM, Team Microdot said:

If you're right and every Needs Reviewer Attention log is an act of passive aggression then it must also hold true that every Needs Archived log is a deliberately aggressive act.

 

That was me demonstrating that your claim that a Needs Reviewer Attention log can only be an act of passive aggression was flawed.

 

Your claim that you've never seen aggression involved from either side on a Needs Maintenance log serves to demonstrate that the original claim was flawed.

 

So we seem to be in agreement then that regardless of wording, bringing a cache to a reviewer's attention is not an act of aggression - passive or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, dprovan said:

It sounds like an NA that could have just as easily been filed even with a visit to GZ by one of the people posting DNFs, so I don't consider it interesting as a counter example. My claim is that a visit to GZ rarely adds information, not that NAs are never wrong.

 

Of course, when I say a visit rarely adds evidence to support an NA, I'm assuming that someone has posted an NM already, and there often are good reasons to visit GZ before filing an NM. That's one of the reasons a visit for an NA is rarely called for: someone already visited GZ to file the NM, and there's no reason for the person filing the NA to doubt the reasons the previous poster justified the NM.

 

My goodness,, I guess it needs to be spelled out. Imo, and I would imagine I speak for most cache owners out there, you need to mind your own bee's wax when you don't have first hand knowledge of what might be going on with a cache. 

 

I guess it's not yet evident to you,,, Groundspeak has a device to do the busy body work. It's called the CHS. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That was me demonstrating that your claim that a Needs Reviewer Attention log can only be an act of passive aggression was flawed.

The problem here is that you think making a flawed statement about passive-aggression constitutes a demonstration.

 

6 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Your claim that you've never seen aggression involved from either side on a Needs Maintenance log serves to demonstrate that the original claim was flawed.

How can any statement about existing logs demonstrate something about a log type that hasn't been invented yet? But I suppose my point was too subtle as stated, so I'll try to make it clearer: If NA were renamed NRA, I do not think that means I will suddenly start seeing passive-aggressive NRAs in my area. What I mean is that I can't help but think that people that won't post NAs but would post an NRA strike me as being passive-aggressive because they want the cache archived, but they refuse to say "This cache should be archived". The reason I say that is that it's really a simple matter to say, "I don't want this cache archived, but..." at the beginning of any NA if that were the real problem, so the NRA log is a way of officially making it not about archival even though it's all about archival.

 

(Just for the record: I think I said that about NAs, not NMs, although I supposed I haven't seen many aggressive NMs, either. But I have to admit, I was only thinking about NMs and NAs that I've encountered in my day-to-day geocaching. Naturally I've seen many  examples of aggressive logs of all types posted in the forums. That might be one reason I see aggressive logs as a symptom of a problem somewhere else, not a general problem with geocaching that must be fixed no matter what the cost to all the utopian geocaching environments that don't have a problem with aggressive geocachers.)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

My goodness,, I guess it needs to be spelled out. Imo, and I would imagine I speak for most cache owners out there, you need to mind your own bee's wax when you don't have first hand knowledge of what might be going on with a cache. 

I do have first hand knowledge. I have the logs, including the log that says "Needs Maintenance". As the CO, you want me to call the person posting the NM a liar and treat you like a god even though you've taken no action. That strikes me as unreasonable. It is my business. I read that log because I was thinking about finding that cache. You wasted my time because the cache is gone, and now you're accusing me of doing something wrong by pointing that out with an NA.

 

If the logs makes it clear there's no point in going to GZ because the cache is obviously missing, then it's irrational to insist I go to GZ where I'm not going to see a thing.

 

3 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I guess it's not yet evident to you,,, Groundspeak has a device to do the busy body work. It's called the CHS. 

GS invented the CHS and insists reviewers must take responsibility for flagging maintenance issues because people like you demand an unreasonable about of support for maintenance logs, so others have been afraid to use them.

 

List all the possible problems with NMs and NAs you want, you can't possibly think that a reviewer that never has any intention of being anywhere near GZ using a mechanical measure of quality like the CHS is a better solution than me reading the logs, coming to a clear conclusion that any experienced geocacher would reach, and posting a log to that effect. The main difference is that the reviewer approach is impersonal, which I suspect CHS supporters consider an advantage, but I think is what's wrong with the recent changes in geocaching.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I do have first hand knowledge. I have the logs, including the log that says "Needs Maintenance".

 

The log written by someone who wasn't you?

 

Yeah - that's second hand knowledge by definition.

 

These discussions could be so much more productive if you didn't spend so much time trying to bend reality.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

If NA were renamed NRA, I do not think that means I will suddenly start seeing passive-aggressive NRAs in my area.

 

Because - according to you - all those good people who previously kept on top of maintenance issues with timely NM's and NA's and kept everythng ship-shape and Bristol fashion have mysteriously stopped doing so.

 

No  - wait - it's all the fault of th CHS which has offended their delicate sensibilities :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The log written by someone who wasn't you?

 

Yeah - that's second hand knowledge by definition.

I have first hand knowledge that maintenance was requested and has not been performed.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, dprovan said:
13 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

The log written by someone who wasn't you?

 

Yeah - that's second hand knowledge by definition.

I have first hand knowledge that maintenance was requested and has not been performed.

 

If we're all completely honest, just for a moment, at best any first hand knowledge you might have is limited to an OM log hasn't been posted.

Share this post


Link to post

Was wandering if this one is a result of CHS? Series of DNFs, no NM or NA and likely absent CO.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes - and for the better in my local area :)

 

A bunch of caches archived by the local reviewer this morning which look to have been flagged by the CHS and justifiably archived.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Like Mudfrog above, I've occasionally gone on an unnecessary maintenance run when someone couldn't find the cache.  It can be frustrating, but since my goal is to visit my caches every couple of years or so whether there is a reported issue or not, I usually enjoy the trip.  The best defense against an "armchair" NA is to query the poster by email asking why they think the cache is missing or damaged.  When I post an armchair NA I spell out the reasons in my log so the CO doesn't need to ask.  For example:  "Cache has 6 consecutive dnfs and no finds in 18 months.  No response to NM log two months ago.  CO appears to be inactive".  In the example I gave above, where I posted 48 armchair NAs, to date only 7 of the COs (15%) have responded in the more than two months since. The Reviewer disabled 46 of them: (2 repaired their cache, 4 archived them, and one promised a yet to be performed repair.)  Thus far 43 of 48 have been archived (90%) while 2 (4%) have been repaired.  The other three still need maintenance.   

The logging procedure is designed to alert the CO to problems with the cache via an NM log.  If all COs responded in some way to NM logs there would be few NAs posted, armchair or otherwise.  The purpose of the NA log is to get The Reviewer involved when you believe a cache is damaged or missing (AND the CO has not responded to the previous NM log),  since only they can archive an abandoned cache and get it removed from the listing service.  Many folks are reluctant to post an NA log which means the number of abandoned caches increases year after year .

I see CHS as a recognition of the problem of numerous abandoned caches, the lack of response to NM logs by many COs,  and the reluctance of folks to post an NA.  If the formula for CHS can detect apparently abandoned caches even half as well as my review of open red wrenches in my area, then the number of damaged and unmaintained or missing caches should decrease over time.  It is, however, easy to game the system by simply responding to The Reviewer with the same words used to respond to an NM log.  Posting an OM log in response to The Reviewer's request for confirmation that a cache is in place and in good shape with:  "I recently checked the cache, and it is still there".   I'm skeptical of folks who only log retrospective OMs, but maybe that's just me.  Even this is helpful though as it becomes possible to identify those COs who appear do "armchair maintenance".  

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Well to answer the question "is CHS working?", consider another question: 

 

If a cache has 55 finds and 12 dnfs and the last 12 logs are 11 dnfs and a NM log (posted on 10/22/18) and the cache was last found 2/27/18 should CHS notice it?  GC6QHPQ

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

Well to answer the question "is CHS working?", consider another question: 

 

If a cache has 55 finds and 12 dnfs and the last 12 logs are 11 dnfs and a NM log (posted on 10/22/18) and the cache was last found 2/27/18 should CHS notice it?  GC6QHPQ

The CHS is merely an impersonal algorithm. An algorithm can’t notice anything. A person has to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post

GC6QHPQ looks fine to me. It doesn't match anything you wrote in terms of finds or DNFs. But that's okay.

If a cache of a certain D rating had 12 DNFs  since a last find 10 months ago, I speculate that the CO would receive a Health Score email about it.

If D is very high 4.5 , 5? maybe not, I'm not sure.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, edexter said:

Well to answer the question "is CHS working?", consider another question: 

If a cache has 55 finds and 12 dnfs and the last 12 logs are 11 dnfs and a NM log (posted on 10/22/18) and the cache was last found 2/27/18 should CHS notice it?  GC6QHPQ

 

Curious what your question cache's D/T ratings are. 

It doesn't seem to be the cache you listed,  a 1.5/2  last found on 10/18, with only 4 DNFs total.   

Thanks.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/8/2018 at 12:28 PM, edexter said:

Well to answer the question "is CHS working?", consider another question: 

 

If a cache has 55 finds and 12 dnfs and the last 12 logs are 11 dnfs and a NM log (posted on 10/22/18) and the cache was last found 2/27/18 should CHS notice it?  GC6QHPQ

 

Hi edexter, the GC code isn't right.

 

My guess, the owner probably got a CHS email but the reviewer chose not to act on it.  It may take an NA to get this cache reviewer-disabled. There must be something a little bit special about this cache. Is it an older cache? Older than 10 years? 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar

Share this post


Link to post

Man, my fat fingered typing...yes should be GC6Q8PQ.  Nothing special about the cache I could see except for the impressive number of consecutive dnfs.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, edexter said:

Man, my fat fingered typing...yes should be GC6Q8PQ.  Nothing special about the cache I could see except for the impressive number of consecutive dnfs.

 

Wow this guy has some pull. He's allowed to hide caches in a country he doesn't live in and in an area he visits in the summer.... "I live in Ottawa, Canada but visit the Cape every summer." 

 

Many of his caches have been archived by reviewers (all I think, but I haven't looked at all of his archived caches).  I see one cache where he said he'd "check on the cache when I had a chance" then did nothing. An NA was posted a few months later. Which was reviewer-disabled the same day the NA was posted (yeah Ontario reviewer! ) and reviewer-archived the following month. Doesn't look like the Massachusetts reviewer(s) is as keen about applying disables and archivals. But it could be that the reviewer was waiting for an NA. No response yet to your NA but it's only been a few days. 

Share this post


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

Wow this guy has some pull. He's allowed to hide caches in a country he doesn't live in and in an area he visits in the summer.... "I live in Ottawa, Canada but visit the Cape every summer." 

 

His cache description says " I live in Ottawa, Canada but visit the Cape every summer. I hid this cache with the help of my Local Maintainer! "

I included the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, to provide full context.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, noncentric said:

 

His cache description says " I live in Ottawa, Canada but visit the Cape every summer. I hid this cache with the help of my Local Maintainer! "

I included the sentence immediately following the one you quoted, to provide full context.

 

Interesting. I missed that bit when I scanned. So not only did the CO abandon his cache and listing but so did the "local mantainer". Given the CO's track record (15 cache hides, 6 reviewer archived cache hides) I doubt there was a local maintainer.

Update: It looks like the Mass. reviewer was waiting for an NA. GC6Q8PQ is now disabled. 

 

 
 
10/22/2018
 
Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure

Share this post


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

Interesting. I missed that bit when I scanned. So not only did the CO abandon his cache and listing but so did the "local mantainer". Given the CO's track record (15 cache hides, 6 reviewer archived cache hides) I doubt there was a local maintainer.

Update: It looks like the Mass. reviewer was waiting for an NA. GC6Q8PQ is now disabled.

So, now you're saying that the CO lied?

Based on the CO's profile, it seems he was "a kid" and probably just got in over his head. My guess would be that he visited his grandparents during the summers and probably asked them to look after his cache. Maybe the CO didn't inform them when there were issues with the cache, so they didn't do any 'maintenance' - or maybe they even died. Who knows?

But either of those two situations would come to my mind before thinking that the CO was lying about there being a local maintainer?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, noncentric said:

it seems he was "a kid"

That looks like adult writing to me. ' Maintainer' What kid would write that? Or 'stealthy'. 'Sneaky' would be a kid choice.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, noncentric said:

So, now you're saying that the CO lied?

Based on the CO's profile, it seems he was "a kid" and probably just got in over his head. My guess would be that he visited his grandparents during the summers and probably asked them to look after his cache. Maybe the CO didn't inform them when there were issues with the cache, so they didn't do any 'maintenance' - or maybe they even died. Who knows?

But either of those two situations would come to my mind before thinking that the CO was lying about there being a local maintainer?

 

What excuse do you give him for not being responsible? What excuse do you give hime for not maintaining his caches and listings? He's active. Last logged in to the site in October. 

 

If he has a proxy maintainer but that person is not maintaining the cache, the CO should respond and should archive his own cache.

 

FYI is he's under 18 he should not have an account, or  he should be under the supervision of a parent. Assuming he followed the TOU then where are his parents in all of this?  What are they teaching with regards to responsible stewardship? What are you saying regarding CO responsibility? If a kid creates an account it's OK if they abandon their listings and contaiiners?  

Quote

 

TOU Agreement:

Minors. Our services are not targeted towards, nor intended for use by, anyone under the age of 13. If you are under the age of 13, you are not permitted to use our services. If you are under the age of 18 but at least 13, you may only use our services under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by this Agreement.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Typo and grammar and layout

Share this post


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

 

What excuse do you give him for not being a responsible? What excuse do you give hime for not maintaining his caches and listings? He's active. Last logged in to the site in October. 

 

If he has a proxy maintainer but that person is not maintaining the cache, the CO should respond and should archive their own cache.

 

FYI is he's under 18 he should not have an account, or  be under the supervision of a parent. Assuming he follows the TOU then where are his parents in all of this. What are they teaching with regards to responsible stewardship. 

TOU Agreement:

Minors. Our services are not targeted towards, nor intended for use by, anyone under the age of 13. If you are under the age of 13, you are not permitted to use our services. If you are under the age of 18 but at least 13, you may only use our services under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian who agrees to be bound by this Agreement.

 

As per usual,  bad behavior is being defended. It doesn't matter the age of the cache owner, he should be responsible for the cache he placed. Sure, there is the slight chance the CO is incapacitated in some way but it's more likely he or she has simply chosen to ignore the problem. I figure this is one of the reasons the CHS was put in place.

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

×