CHS score. Is it making a difference?

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

Depends on one's definition of scads. Within 15 miles of this spot near you 37.665967 -121.830067 there are  121 caches with red wrenches.

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.

[+Team Christiansen]

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I give up. You're missing that I don't get a chance to because the cache has already been archived before I want to.

 

A problem gets taken care of before you can report it yourself -- this is bad?

 

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm sorry, but I think the cause and effect goes the other way. In my area, the features were used the way they were intended, the cache quality was fine, and everyone was happy. Then there was a year of whining in the forums about "bad caches", the CHS score was invented, reviewers were told to use it to improve "cache quality", and now reviewer acts first. There's no way for me to see that other than GS's attitude as changing the de facto responsibilities. Yes, the community inferred that they don't need to post NMs and NAs anymore, but their inference is correct.

 

It seems with the differing opionions that this may be a regional thing (but I really think it is just personal perception). In my area, many cachers are much more proactive in logging DNFs, appropriate NMs and NAs. Many owners are more proactive with maintenance whether inspired by DNFs, NMs, or NAs, or CHS-resulting emails. And even reviewers seem more proactive. True, there are still abondoned caches, throwdowns, and unresponsive owners out there. But, things are better than a couple years ago (not to suggest things were bad then). And I believe the CHS has something to do with it (although there is the occasional person who not understanding gets offended by it). 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Team Christiansen

[+thebruce0]

32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

You always have a chance to.

I give up. You're missing that I don't get a chance to because the cache has already been archived before I want to.

 

To me that means the cache was properly archived by reviewer judgment, either for an immediate imperative reason or inactive ownership. What illegitimate reason can you explain it was archived, since you wanted to place a legitimate NM on the cache, but it was archived (assumedly illegitimately) before you got a chance to let the owner know it needed maintenance?  That doesn't even make sense to me, save for reviewer error.

 

 

32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Then there was a year of whining in the forums about "bad caches", the CHS score was invented, reviewers were told to use it to improve "cache quality", and now reviewer acts first.

 

So? Did the reviewers make wrong decisions?  How does that change the purpose of of the NM log? If the result is the same, why would I feel inconvenienced or offended or anything other than satisfaction that a maintenance issue was dealt with before I could alert the owner myself - whether it was fixed by the owner or archived by the reviewer?

 

 

32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

There's no way for me to see that other than GS's attitude as changing the de facto responsibilities.

 

As I said, if people stop using the logs the way they're intended, then GS can't win - cache quality goes down, people complain, game gets hurt. If  they step in and provide a way for reviewers to be more proactive to pick up the slack (they could of course be proactive before as well, but it was more tedious, and risky; now not so much), they still lose because now you think they're changing people's responsibilities.

No, they're trying to pick up the slack where a lot of community may be dropping it.

 

Is that the best solution? Now that's a different question. I don't personally think their new methods are as successful as they could be; as made clear by all the discussions and opinions about boycotting DNFs, NMs, and NAs. Their user interface and presentation of the methods for the community to help keep the general 'quality' of the game high are, imo, lacking.

 

But once again, nothing has changed about the actual purpose and intent of the NM and NA logs.

 

And the CHS, in weighing DNF/NM/NA logs is a descriptive reactionary feature for use by reviewers to help them make decisions, not a prescriptive one.  But people are taking the results personally and letting that affect how they use the logs. That, as mentioned above, is a problem in the implementation and presentation of the CHS - not a change in fundamental definition of the DNF/NM/NA.

Edited June 21, 2018 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

36 minutes ago, dprovan said:

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

You always have a chance to.

I give up. You're missing that I don't get a chance to because the cache has already been archived before I want to.

 

 

Absolutely priceless!

 

Roughly translated while I sat around doing nothing somebody else did something and that's bad!

 

 

[+noncentric]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But once again, nothing has changed about the actual purpose and intent of the NM and NA logs.

I agree, the purpose/intent of NM/NA hasn't changed.

 

 

4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

To me that means the cache was properly archived by reviewer judgment, either for an immediate imperative reason or inactive ownership. What illegitimate reason can you explain it happened, since you wanted to place a NM on the cache but it was archived before you got a chance to let the owner know?  That doesn't even make sense to me.

I've read dprovan's perspective on this several times before, and I think I'm correctly understanding what he's saying. And if I'm correctly understanding him, then I agree with him.

 

When reviewers are proactive about strings of DNF's or other indicators (CHS scores?) that suggest there is a problem with a cache, and then TD that cache before a cacher logs an NM or NA, then it can dilute the perceived benefit of logging NM/NA.  Cachers in the area may see that CO's get pushed into maintenance or that caches are archived without any need of NM/NA logs to be submitted, so then cachers don't bother logging NM/NA on caches that do need it, since they figure

Reviewers will take care of it without their NM/NA logs. Especially consider this in the case of newer cachers, who may not even be familiar with NM/NA logs yet. If they don't see cachers posting NM/NA logs on caches that need maintenance/archival, then they may surmise that they don't need to post such logs either - just let the Reviewers/CHS do the work of flagging caches.  To me, and maybe to dprovan, that doesn't seem like such a great system.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Roughly translated while I sat around doing nothing somebody else did something and that's bad!

If that "somebody else" was a Reviewer without any action by cachers in the community, then it is kinda "bad".  Cachers in the community should be the ones logging NM/NA on caches that need it.  Relying on Reviewers/CHS to identify caches in need of CO intervention is not how the NM/NA system was meant to work.  If the "somebody else" was another cacher that logged an NM/NA before I did, then that's great and that's what the community should be promoting. But instead, all the cachers in the community will just wait until Reviewers/CHS gets around to identifying the caches.  It's not the like the Reviewers don't have better things to do with their time, right?

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, noncentric said:

11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Roughly translated while I sat around doing nothing somebody else did something and that's bad!

If that "somebody else" was a Reviewer without any action by cachers in the community, then it is kinda "bad".  Cachers in the community should be the ones logging NM/NA on caches that need it.  Relying on Reviewers/CHS to identify caches in need of CO intervention is not how the NM/NA system was meant to work.  If the "somebody else" was another cacher that logged an NM/NA before I did, then that's great and that's what the community should be promoting. But instead, all the cachers in the community will just wait until Reviewers/CHS gets around to identifying the caches.  It's not the like the Reviewers don't have better things to do with their time, right?

 

I don't disagree with you.

 

I just find the idea of complaining because someone did something useful because you didn't want to utterly ridiculous.

[+noncentric]

On 6/20/2018 at 1:04 AM, noncentric said:

On 6/18/2018 at 7:18 PM, Mudfrog said:

But,,, we're not talking about perfectly good caches, are we? A cache that needs maintenance is not perfect and needs to be dealt with. Except for Touchstone, i don't think anyone is really saying that a cache should automatically be archived just because its owner is awol. We're talking about caches that aren't being taken care of. An ownerless traditional cache that is in good shape isn't going to be messed with.

It would take a bit of searching for me to find relevant posts, but there have been comments by cachers in these forums (in different threads) that a cache without an active owner should be removed from the 'map', even if the cache is in fine shape, because that cache might develop problems later and the problems won't be addressed without an active owner.

Some examples of cachers saying "that a cache should automatically be archived just because its owner is awol".  Each of these quotes are from distinct cachers, it's not just one cacher saying all of these things in different ways. And this is just from looking for examples for about 20 minutes.

 

" I'd be in favor of scraping the site for ownerless caches;  5 years of no cache owner log on or action on any cache page - HQ disable with 6 months for the cache owner to enable. "  OR   " Perhaps require that someone visit their cache at least once a year to keep it active. "  OR  " Automatically disable caches where the cache owner hasn't logged in in 2 years. If they don't log in within 6 months of the disable, automatically archive their caches. "  OR  " The remotness of the cache should have no baring on the cache owner visiting the site at least once a year regardless of activity. "

 

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Depends on one's definition of scads. Within 15 miles of this spot near you 37.665967 -121.830067 there are  121 caches with red wrenches. 

It could be that many of those have owners that have never removed NMs, probably because someone threw down a container and the owners are set-em-and-forget-em types that neither maintain their physical cache nor their listing.

You are absolutely right.  Each person needs to define "scads" for themselves.  Personally, I can't recall any time/place where I felt like there were "a lot" or "scads" of caches in bad condition. I'll find a yucky cache every once in a while, even in Lock-n-Lock containers, but I just see that as an "aw shucks" part of the hobby. The world is nowhere near perfect, so I certainly don't expect geocaching containers to be either.

 

I have also seen what I feel like are "scads" of caches with unnecessary red wrenches.  The funniest one was a few weeks ago, when someone logged a Found It, then logged an NM saying " Paid for premium.. it is not letting me access geocaches ".  The CO logged an OM soon afterwards, but imagine if it was an absentee CO and that red wrench was on the cache for years.

I also see a good number of caches that were disabled (by CO or Reviewer) and then after the CO fixes the cache, then they log an Enable that mentions what they fixed. But they don't also log an OM, so the red wrench doesn't go away.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by noncentric
fixed quotes

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

When reviewers are proactive about strings of DNF's or other indicators (CHS scores?) that suggest there is a problem with a cache, and then TD that cache before a cacher logs an NM or NA, then it can dilute the perceived benefit of logging NM/NA.

 

Ahh, see that's not what dprovan is saying. He's said the logs are objectively different now: "there aren't actually such things as NMs and NAs anymore... reviewers are now considered responsible for cache quality. It's not longer the responsibility of the community".  What you just agreed with is the inferred use of the logs based on new interface updates, which I agree are not optimal and not properly instructing on the unchanged purpose and intent of the relevant logs. That's not the same thing.

 

ETA: And yes, I understand there's some hyperbole there; but the underlying sense is that dprovan is saying GS is changing the intent of the logs. I'm saying that's incorrect; at least insofar as the changes have been limited to a subset of functionality in how some people access the creation of those logs. The fundamental purpose of the logs has not changed.

 

11 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Cachers in the community should be the ones logging NM/NA on caches that need it.

 

Yes indeed.

But apparently that wasn't happening. So this was GS's response.  If you have better ideas (I'm sure they're out there), present them.  For now, HQ is polling the community (again) for opinions and ideas to try to help improve 'geocache quality' (however they define that ).

Edited June 21, 2018 by thebruce0

[+L0ne.R]

23 minutes ago, noncentric said:

32 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Roughly translated while I sat around doing nothing somebody else did something and that's bad!

If that "somebody else" was a Reviewer without any action by cachers in the community, then it is kinda "bad".  Cachers in the community should be the ones logging NM/NA on caches that need it.  Relying on Reviewers/CHS to identify caches in need of CO intervention is not how the NM/NA system was meant to work.  If the "somebody else" was another cacher that logged an NM/NA before I did, then that's great and that's what the community should be promoting. But instead, all the cachers in the community will just wait until Reviewers/CHS gets around to identifying the caches.  It's not the like the Reviewers don't have better things to do with their time, right?

 

So what's the answer? 

More reviewer intervention, because many find posting NAs distasteful, is working better than the old way of waiting for the community to post NAs. 

But that's not working as well as it could because abandoned caches with NMs that have been in place for years still languish untouched by reviewers. 

More reviewer intervention may be the best answer. 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+noncentric]

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

12 minutes ago, noncentric said:

When reviewers are proactive about strings of DNF's or other indicators (CHS scores?) that suggest there is a problem with a cache, and then TD that cache before a cacher logs an NM or NA, then it can dilute the perceived benefit of logging NM/NA.

Ahh, see that's not what dprovan is saying. He's said the logs are objectively different now: "there aren't actually such things as NMs and NAs anymore... reviewers are now considered responsible for cache quality. It's not longer the responsibility of the community".  What you just agreed with is the inferred use of the logs based on new interface updates, which I agree are not optimal and not properly instructing on the unchanged purpose and intent of the relevant logs. That's not the same thing.

Well, dprovan has said a lot of things.  I wasn't commenting on the specific sentence that you italicized above, but about the overall idea.

 

As I already said in the same post you quoted - no change to purpose/intent:

13 minutes ago, noncentric said:

31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

But once again, nothing has changed about the actual purpose and intent of the NM and NA logs.

I agree, the purpose/intent of NM/NA hasn't changed.

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

16 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Cachers in the community should be the ones logging NM/NA on caches that need it.

Yes indeed.

But apparently that wasn't happening. So this was GS's response.  If you have better ideas (I'm sure they're out there), present them.  For now, HQ is polling the community (again) for opinions and ideas to try to help improve 'geocache quality' (however they define that ).

Yes, I haven't gotten around to catching up with the new "quality" posts yet and will save comment about that for the relevant thread that was created.

[+L0ne.R]

15 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I'll find a yucky cache every once in a while, even in Lock-n-Lock containers, but I just see that as an "aw shucks" part of the hobby. The world is nowhere near perfect, so I certainly don't expect geocaching containers to be either.

 

It's not simply about the condition of the cache, it's about the integrity of the pastime. 

Abandoned broken caches are OK. Throwdowns are OK. Litter is fine.

Owners who hide and never monitor and maintain are OK. 

 

Yuck doesn't just happen, it usually takes months of neglect. Often those yuck containers will have months of found logs that say: "Tab is broken." "Poured a few ounces of water out." "Log is soaked." "Log is moldy". "Bubble liquid burst." 

 

A CHS score should help pick up these problem caches. But so far I'm not seeing any clear sign that CHS is making a dent. Either it's because it's not much of a tool, or because as delinquent caches are discovered and archived, more delinquent caches fill the list again. 

Edited June 21, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

More reviewer intervention may be the best answer. 

 

The best answer would be to rid the game of those who wail in the face of legitimate NM's and NA's and demand the summary ostracism of those nasty caching police.

 

This vulgar attitude has been tolerated for too long and its impact is evidenced by the very fact this discussion is taking place.

[+noncentric]

5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

So what's the answer? 

More reviewer intervention since many find posting NAs distasteful, is working better than the old way of waiting for the community to post NAs. 

But that's not working as well as it could because abandoned caches with NMs that have been in place for years still languish untouched by reviewers. 

More reviewer intervention may be the best answer.

I've had an idea about how to encourage NM/NA logs, or at least mitigate the discouragement that some cachers feel about posting such logs. Will post it with my reply to the Quality thread when I write that one.

 

I'm not sure that reviewer intervention is the best answer.  The more it happens, then the less need the community will see for them to post NA's themselves. I think it would be better to encourage and/or educate cachers, especially new cachers that use the app and probably don't even know that NM/NA exist, about what the log types exist and what their purpose is. Get more community members to use the logs, which means more cachers will see the logs, which means more cachers will learn what those logs are for, which means more cachers will use them when needed?

Oh, and get rid of the canned log text, so cachers will write a reason that the cache needs to be archived. When they write a reason, then cachers looking at the cache page will better understand what 'reasons' a cache needs to be archived, so if they see another cache that has those same 'reasons' then they'll log an NA too. For example, they see a cache has an NA on it that says "Cache container is broken. NM's since last year have not been addressed by cache owner". Then when they come across a cache like that, they won't just log "TFTC", but will also log an NA because they've learned that caches like that should get an NA log.

The way people learn how to behave in this hobby is largely influenced by what they see other cachers doing, right?  So let them see that other cachers are logging NM/NA, and why, and then they're more likely to learn whey they should also log NM/NA.

[+K13]

Cache finders who report bad cache condition (wet log, water in container, log full, etc) in their Found It log will NEVER be seen by CHS nor Reviewer.  The CHS flags multiple DNF & NM, sending a report to the Reviewer.

 

If cachers aren't willing to log with the correct log type when needed, the CHS has little effect on cache quality. 

 

If CO hasn't acted based on the cache condition statements in Found It logs and you find the cache has issues, add a NM log. That's what responsible cache finders should do if the cache owner was not responsive to the notes in the prior logs.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I think it would be better to encourage and/or educate cachers, especially new cachers that use the app and probably don't even know that NM/NA exist, about what the log types exist and what their purpose is. Get more community members to use the logs, which means more cachers will see the logs, which means more cachers will learn what those logs are for, which means more cachers will use them when needed?

 

Definitely heading in the right direction but you're competing against the 'cool' kids in the playground, often driven by numbers, sometimes driven by unknown mysterious forces / ideas, who make it known, loudly and frequently and especially to newbies, that NM and NA isn't cool and that those who log them aren't cool (putting it mildly).

 

[+noncentric]

8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's not simply about the condition of the cache, it's about the integrity of the pastime. 

Abandoned broken caches are OK. Throwdowns are OK. Litter is fine.

Owners who hide and never monitor and maintain are OK.

No, it's no okay.  How do you conflate my comments to that?  Yuck happens, but I'm not going to let it ruin my caching trip on the infrequent occasions that it does happen.  I'm not going to feel bad about an entire hobby just because a small slice of it was yucky. Again, for me, most of the caches I've found have been in good shape.

 

 

8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

A CHS score should help pick up these problem caches. But so far I'm not seeing any clear sign that CHS is making a dent. Either it's because it's not much of a tool, or because as delinquent caches are discovered and archived, more delinquent caches fill the list again. 

If the part of your post that I bolded is true, then maybe it's not so true that "archiving a cache to make room for a new cache" is better than letting a "community maintained" cache persist. At least a cache that is community-maintained is getting maintained.  
 

 

3 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Definitely heading in the right direction but you're competing against the 'cool' kids in the playground, often driven by numbers, sometimes driven by unknown mysterious forces / ideas, who make it known, loudly and frequently and especially to newbies, that NM and NA isn't cool and that those who log them aren't cool (putting it mildly).

Yes, that's what my idea addresses.  I just need to flush it out more to make sure it actually makes sense and isn't just something that will end up causing other types of problems.

For example, I've heard local cachers say that cachers should get 'points' in those souvenir promotions for posting NM/NA logs. Yeah, that would be great for caches that actually need it, but there are so many ways that would get abused, with caches that don't need such logs getting them posted just so the cacher could get the souvenir, or maybe even cachers trashing a cache so that they could post an NM/NA. Chasing souvenirs can elicit behavior that's just as bad as chasing numbers. Every idea needs to have a "devil's advocate" view before implementation.

[+yawetag]

11 minutes ago, K13 said:

Cache finders who report bad cache condition (wet log, water in container, log full, etc) in their Found It log will NEVER be seen by CHS nor Reviewer.  The CHS flags multiple DNF & NM, sending a report to the Reviewer.

 

Maybe NM should be a checkbox with a Found It log as well. That way, it's flagged as "Found" and "Needs Maintenance". If a user clicks the "Needs Maintenance" checkbox, then a second input field opens where the user must input why it needs maintenance. Alternatively, have default answers with checkboxes ("wet log", "full log", "broken container"); the user can then select which ones meet their reasoning.

[+thebruce0]

28 minutes ago, noncentric said:

As I already said in the same post you quoted - no change to purpose/intent

Oh yeah, I noted that you agreed just pointing out why there's disagreement with dprovan.

 

19 minutes ago, noncentric said:

The way people learn how to behave in this hobby is largely influenced by what they see other cachers doing, right?  So let them see that other cachers are logging NM/NA, and why, and then they're more likely to learn whey they should also log NM/NA.

+1million.

 

2 minutes ago, yawetag said:

Maybe NM should be a checkbox with a Found It log as well. That way, it's flagged as "Found" and "Needs Maintenance". If a user clicks the "Needs Maintenance" checkbox, then a second input field opens where the user must input why it needs maintenance. Alternatively, have default answers with checkboxes ("wet log", "full log", "broken container"); the user can then select which ones meet their reasoning.

Man, see, I remember suggesting this very mechanic SO long ago before the logging method was updated and NM logs were auto-created, not quite the same way we were hoping.  My vision was just like the way additional coordinates were added to a log - click the button and new form elements are added to provide more detail.  Here, same thing; button to add a NM displays another field for extra detail.  Imply with the log being posted that another log is being posted, with the customizable and/or selectable text, especially when it comes to logs like NM and NA posted in tandem with the Find/DNF. I've been pushing for that functionality for a long time... =/

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

26 minutes ago, K13 said:

Cache finders who report bad cache condition (wet log, water in container, log full, etc) in their Found It log will NEVER be seen by CHS nor Reviewer.  The CHS flags multiple DNF & NM, sending a report to the Reviewer.

 

If cachers aren't willing to log with the correct log type when needed, the CHS has little effect on cache quality. 

 

If CO hasn't acted based on the cache condition statements in Found It logs and you find the cache has issues, add a NM log. That's what responsible cache finders should do if the cache owner was not responsive to the notes in the prior logs.

 

Ideally, finders will post the NM log. Few do. Most post the problem in their found logs and it could go for years like this until someone comes along willing to post an NM. Then go for years until someone will come along and post an NA. 

 

In my area, reviewers have been proactive. They will sweep. They will sweep for NMs. They will sweep for rows of DNFs. They will sweep for keywords. Reviewers have the tools to do this. They are best equipped to fix the problem. They have the authority. Owners generally respect their authority without shouting Cache Cop! Many finders still want to make an appearance at events, or have a beer with other geocachers, or continue to attract geocachers to their vlogs and blogs, so they aren't going to do something which will detract from their social endeavors.  

 

It sounds to me that some people want to stop reviewers from doing a job they aren't complaining about. I bet most may actually feel they are doing a great service to the pastime and community. And they are. 

[+noncentric]

19 minutes ago, yawetag said:

Maybe NM should be a checkbox with a Found It log as well. That way, it's flagged as "Found" and "Needs Maintenance". If a user clicks the "Needs Maintenance" checkbox, then a second input field opens where the user must input why it needs maintenance. Alternatively, have default answers with checkboxes ("wet log", "full log", "broken container"); the user can then select which ones meet their reasoning.

Uhm, that's sort of how it works now. The 'new' logging method does what your "checkbox" and "default answers" ideas do. It doesn't to the "second input field" though, and that is what I find lacking and why I Opt Out and use the 'old' logging method when submitting NM/NA logs.

 

 

10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Man, see, I remember suggesting this very mechanic SO long ago before the logging method was updated and NM logs were auto-created, not quite the same way we were hoping.  My vision was just like the way additional coordinates were added to a log - click the button and new form elements are added to provide more detail.  Here, same thing; button to add a NM displays another field for extra detail.  Imply with the log being posted that another log is being posted, with the customizable and/or selectable text, especially when it comes to logs like NM and NA posted in tandem with the Find/DNF. I've been pushing for that functionality for a long time... =/

I also had an idea last year after the canned log text was implemented. Funny to go back and see my idea shot down.

[+L0ne.R]

46 minutes ago, noncentric said:

The way people learn how to behave in this hobby is largely influenced by what they see other cachers doing, right?  So let them see that other cachers are logging NM/NA, and why, and then they're more likely to learn whey they should also log NM/NA.

 

At events and on Facebook do people encourage each other to log NMs and NAs? Events and social media are an important place to encourage local cachers. But I've seen people on social media get shouted down, or met with pin-drop silence, or even booted out of facebook groups for daring to speak up for encouraging others to report problems with NA and NM logs. 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+noncentric]

7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It sounds to me that some people want to stop reviewers from doing a job they aren't complaining about. I bet most may actually feel they are doing a great service to the pastime and community. And they are. 

They are doing a lot to help the game, agreed.  They shouldn't have to spend that much time trawling through caches though.

I bet that we wouldn't hear about Reviewers complaining, even if they are complaining amongst themselves or to themselves. Just because we don't see it out in public, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

 

5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

At events and on Facebook do people encourage each other to log NMs and NAs? Events and social media are an important place to encourage local cachers. But I've seen people on social media get shouted down, or met with pin-drop silence, or even booted out of facebook groups for daring to speak up for encouraging others to report problems with NA and NM logs.

I'm not active on social media. I use it to keep up with certain people that use it, but my use could be categorized as "rare", so I don't know what is happening on that front.

I don't attend a lot of events. The ones I have attended seem to be mostly the same group of cachers. I haven't heard much in the way of either encouraging or discouraging the logging of NM/NA, but it seems like most of the cachers already know when to use the logs and they do use them. I haven't been to many events where there were a lot of newcomers. Maybe new to the area, but not new to the hobby.

 

I will say that there's a cacher that posts NM's for things like updating trackable inventory, too many muggles in the area, and not a good neighborhood. Most of those NM's are wiped out by a simple OM saying there's no real problem. I haven't seen that cacher treated poorly at all at events where we're both in attendance.

 

But that is just my tiny corner of the world. I wouldn't assume that what I'm seeing here is how things are across the entire globe.

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

They shouldn't have to spend that much time trawling through caches though.

 

Maybe they find that part of the job satisfying

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

I bet that we wouldn't hear about Reviewers complaining

. 

We've heard about reviewers complaining about reviewing challenge caches and having to fight with cache submitters.

We've heard about reviewers complaining about the no PT rule and it was lifted. 

They do complain and sometimes we hear about it. So far we haven't heard that reviewers are complaining about the CHS tool, but we have heard that they are using it.  

[+cerberus1]

25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

At events and on Facebook do people encourage each other to log NMs and NAs? Events and social media are an important place to encourage local cachers. But I've seen people on social media get shouted down, or met with pin-drop silence, or even booted out of facebook groups for daring to speak up for encouraging others to report problems with NA and NM logs. 

 

Maybe it's just here, but one of the reasons so many went to faceboook from local websites is because a bunch didn't want to really discuss things.

New folks mostly, ask for the fifth time  "If I only drive a nail in this one tree, would it be okay?" , then get pissed when they hear the same answer. 

They don't wanna hear no.

One of the last threads on a local site to me, a member said, "you couldn't talk to me like that on faceboook..". 

I said what he was talking about never happened (I was there.  He wasn't.), and that he just made that up. 

 - But my reply was, "So how do you ever hold actual conversations if everyone's always agreeing with you?" .   

The few times I ask a friend to show me what's going on with the faceboook, it's someone says something (usually about themselves...), with a line of submissives agreeing afterwards. 

 

We've yet to see "discussions" on anything related to the hobby at events unless it's a rare Geocaching 101-type event.

A further area,  we used to see more talking about a competing site more than this one ... at an event from this site.

 -  A "respected" cacher too no less...

Another in the same area talked more about their stock options than the hobby.  We left early on both.

One of the reasons I rarely log events anymore.  Guilt by association maybe...

A few states now, I'm not gonna  bs and say even most members give two figs about the guidelines.

I ask questions,  often from threads here, but usually just ignored unless a low showing. 

 Stats, " how I got my numbers" (that "all about me" thing again...),  stats, "give me a hint", "we're doing (pick a cache name) later, and anyone who'd like can tag along" and stats, seem the norm, along with games,  prizes, sometimes a potluck. 

Did I mentions stats are discussed a lot?

 

[+noncentric]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

It sounds to me that some people want to stop reviewers from doing a job they aren't complaining about. I bet most may actually feel they are doing a great service to the pastime and community. And they are. 

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

They shouldn't have to spend that much time trawling through caches though.

Are we talking about the same thing?  I was talking about "trawling through caches", like looking for strings of DNF's or unresolved NM's. That's very different from caches that are flagged for their attention by a CHS program.

It would be interesting to hear from Reviewers whether they'd prefer to spend time in front of a computer searching for caches that have problems AND review caches that show up in a 'problem' queue, or just spend time on the latter. After all, they are cachers and maybe they'd prefer to spend time caching or looking at caches in their area that they could go search for or publishing new caches.

 

 

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

They do complain and sometimes we hear about it. So far we haven't heard that reviewers are complaining about the CHS tool, but we have heard that they are using it.  

Again, I was talking about "trawling through caches". All that "proactive" stuff that you mentioned earlier.   I never said they were complaining about the CHS tool.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And the CHS, in weighing DNF/NM/NA logs is a descriptive reactionary feature for use by reviewers to help them make decisions, not a prescriptive one.  But people are taking the results personally and letting that affect how they use the logs. That, as mentioned above, is a problem in the implementation and presentation of the CHS - not a change in fundamental definition of the DNF/NM/NA.

 

I'd say there's definitely been a fundamental change in the effective definition of DNF. It used to be just an informational log, saying "I didn't find it today", with no action required by owners or reviewers, but now there's an expectation that the CO must do something in response, and if they don't, the reviewer should step in. The Help Centre even says that you should log an NA on a cache if you can't find it and there are several DNFs on the cache page with no owner response. And just look at the people on the Cache Quality insight thread saying caches should be automatically marked as NM or disabled after a few DNFs.

Edited June 21, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It used to be just an informational log, saying "I didn't find it today", with no action required by owners or reviewers, but now there's an expectation that the CO must do something in response, and if they don't, the reviewer should step in. The Help Centre even says that you should log an NA on a cache if you can't find it and there are several DNFs on the cache page with no owner response.

 

Expectation?  Only in that the CO has to make a judgment call because the wording is always "might be a problem". Nowhere is there an expectation that, say, a CO must check on a cache if one single DNF is posted. All the wording I can find implies potential issues, might be problems, should not must, may or may not take action, reviewers are never forced to do anything, etc. I see nothing that states a requirement, an expectation, of what a cache owner must do in an instance of these logs.  All of these situations are taken as they come, judged on a case by case basis, by both the CO and the reviewer.

 

But let's see...

 

1.7: "Be proud of Did not find (DNF) logs. They alert others that the cache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. DNF logs also inform the cache owner they may need to check on their container."

(blog linked above): "When you log a DNF, you’re telling geocachers that the geocache may be more difficult to find than anticipated or may even be missing. You’re also letting the geocache owner know that they may need to double check that their geocache container can still be found at the posted coordinates."

 

3.2

- NM: "If you find a geocache in need of help (e.g. logbook is full or container is damaged), add a “Report a problem” option to your log.  When you select “Report a problem” on Geocaching.com, the system adds a “Needs Maintenance” log and an attribute  to the page to alert the cache owner and other geocachers that the cache may need attention."

 

- NA: "Cache archival is permanent, so this option is only used under rare circumstances. Consider contacting the cache owner directly with your concerns before selecting this option. ...

Select this option if: ...

[3] You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

Do not select this option if:

* You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” log

* The cache needs repairs — select another “Needs maintenance” option.

The cache owner and local reviewer will get notifications and may follow up. The cache will not be archived automatically and you may not see a public response to your log."

 

I dunno man, it still reads to me like they are encouraging the very same use of the DNF/NM/NA logs always. I can see how the wording for the select-if #3 phrase implies "oh, lots of DNFs? Let's just post a NA" - but that's if you ignore the rest of the context (especially 'with no owner response') and instruction! That incorrect use will happen if people don't grasp what the DNF, NM, and NA purpose is, when to use them, and when not to use them, which seem to me to be explained in the above articles, but maybe still not clearly enough.

 

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And just look at the people on the Cache Quality insight thread saying caches should be automatically marked as NM or disabled after a few DNFs.

 

Sure, people who don't understand what the log types are for, also demonstrating that GS may not have been clear in how they should be used. That, again, doesn't change the fact that the purpose and intent of those log types have not changed at all.

Edited June 22, 2018 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

There are a myriad of reasons why people leave. Imo, one of the bigger reasons is that many just simply grow tired of finding easy micros hidden in non interesting areas. Another, perhaps not as major, is what we're discussing here,, that finders are growing more disappointed finding too many caches that are in need of maintenance. 

 

As I said previously, only 18% of caches around here are micros so I doubt people are giving up because of "easy micros hidden in non interesting areas". I have thirty active caches, all small or bigger and placed in scenic bushland spots, often with themed containers that are part of a story (for example, my Constable Plodfoot series), but they don't get many finds. None of my last six hides have reached double figures, including what I thought was an interesting multi along a section of the Great North Walk that's only had three finds in nearly two years (two awarded FPs). Soon I expect the CHS will be pinging it for not having been found in a long time. The caches around here that get the most finds are those 18% easy micros hidden in non-interesting areas that you so despise.

 

I think one of the problems here is the app limiting newcomers to just D/T 1.5 or lower traditionals, and there aren't all that many caches around here falling into that category (just 27 within 10km of home). Unless they upgrade to premium or discover they can access many more caches on the website, they just find them all and lose interest.

[+Team DEMP]

I heard thru the grapevine that the next site promotion will earn points only for NM and NA logs. That should help clean things up. 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Expectation?  Only in that the CO has to make a judgment call because the wording is always "might be a problem". Nowhere is there an expectation that, say, a CO must check on a cache if one single DNF is posted. All the wording I can find implies potential issues, might be problems, should not must, may or may not take action, reviewers are never forced to do anything, etc. I see nothing that states a requirement, an expectation, of what a cache owner must do in an instance of these logs.  All of these situations are taken as they come, judged on a case by case basis, by both the CO and the reviewer.

 

So why did the CHS ping my cache after just one DNF, with a stated expectation that I should visit the cache to fix it, disable it until I could or archive it?

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Select this option if: ...

[3] You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

 

Surely this implies an expectation that a CO should respond in some way if there are several DNFs on the cache page. In particular, note that it doesn't say those DNFs have to be consecutive, they just have to be somewhere on the cache page, nor is there any allowance for the difficulty of the hide. Does the CO need to respond every time there are several DNFs on a D5 hide? I would really like to see this wording changed, or if that really is the intended meaning, make it clear in the list of CO's responsibilities what they are expected to do in the face of "several DNFs" on caches right across the difficulty and terrain spectrum. As you have pointed out, the guidelines and Help Centre are silent on this everywhere else.

 

I'm something of a Blind Freddy when it comes to finding caches. I used to be able to just log a DNF when I didn't find a cache, safe in the knowledge that my DNF was just a statement of my ineptitude, but that's no longer the case; DNFs now have unintended consequences. Just ask the poor cacher who DNF'ed my cache that got pinged how she felt when she learnt that had happened.

[+Mudfrog]

WOW, y'all got busy while I was away. 

 

I didn't read all the replies since the 4th page but I did see a couple stating they didn't see many problems. I have to wonder then, why did Groundspeak initiate the CHS system in the first place?

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Mudfrog

[+noncentric]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So why did the CHS ping my cache after just one DNF, with a stated expectation that I should visit the cache to fix it, disable it until I could or archive it?

That incident has been brought up numerous times, and I agree that it was likely a "false positive", but it's already been mentioned that the algorithm has been adjusted since then.  Seriously, if a cacher gets a CHS email under your same circumstances now, then it would be a valid argument - but bringing it up over and over doesn't seem productive to me, because it doesn't reflect how things are working now.

 

It would be great to hear about more recent examples of "false positive" CHS emails, so we could have a more relevant discussion about the effectiveness of the algorithm.

 

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In particular, note that it doesn't say those DNFs have to be consecutive, they just have to be somewhere on the cache page, nor is there any allowance for the difficulty of the hide.

The Help Center article about the health score does say that " Difficulty and terrain rating " are factored into the Health Score.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by noncentric

[+barefootjeff]

24 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Seriously, if a cacher gets a CHS email under your same circumstances now, then it would be a valid argument - but bringing it up over and over doesn't seem productive to me, because it doesn't reflect how things are working now.

 

I only mentioned my incident because thebruce0 insisted that a single DNF would never raise an expectation of a CO response. But in any case, you don't have to look too far back in the forums to see other more recent examples that are very similar. One that sticks in my mind from a few months back had just two DNFs followed by a find and was still pinged. To the best of my knowledge, every instance that's been reported has involved a cache with just a small number of DNF logs and no NMs or NAs to suggest any other problems, and many of those were higher D/T caches. I'm beginning to suspect that the algorithm is based on statistics derived from predominantly urban P&G micros, where the likelihood of a DNF implying a missing cache is much higher than for, say, a T4 or T5 in an isolated spot, while those higher D/T caches get few finds so any DNF-to-find ratios it's calculating have little statistical significance. Perhaps the algorithm works very well on big city P&Gs and LPCs that get hundreds of finds before a few DNFs when they go missing, but that doesn't mean we have to accept higher D/T caches as just collateral damage.

Edited June 22, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I only mentioned my incident because thebruce0 insisted that a single DNF would never raise an expectation of a CO response.

 

It doesn't. The CO is not expected to do anything with the posting of a single DNF.

EVEN IF the CO gets a nudge email for whatever reason we're not privvy to. It's a nudge email about a possible issue with wording that can be misconstrued but well understood by people in the know that it can be ignored. We've been over this SO many times.

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

It doesn't. The CO is not expected to do anything with the posting of a single DNF.

EVEN IF the CO gets a nudge email for whatever reason we're not privvy to. It's a nudge email about a possible issue with wording that can be misconstrued but well understood by people in the know that it can be ignored. We've been over this SO many times.

 

 

So why were we told by a reviewer at a recent mega specifically not to ignore the CHS email but instead log an armchair OM if we know the cache is fine?

 

Hint: ignoring the email makes you appear to them as an absent CO.

Edited June 22, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

Another question that's bugging me in all this. The CHS sends out its email just a couple of days after the DNF that triggered it. Why the rush? Why not allow time for the CO to act off his or her own bat if there really is a problem, or to communicate with the DNFer if they need a stronger hint, or for the DNFer themselves to go back, try again and find it? Why the haste to step in? You get a month to respond to an NM. You get a month to respond after a reviewer has disabled your cache following an NA. Why is a DNF so much more urgent?

[+mimaef]

On 6/18/2018 at 2:14 AM, dprovan said:

 

 

Now let me ask you a question: If you knew about problem caches with NMs from years back, why didn't you post NAs?

 

I started Geocaching in August. I read the logs of a cache before I visit so I know what to expect, which is how I know they have had years of issues. And I do every time I run into one that is basically trash. I'm not going to post a NA on a cache I've never visited to see its condition for myself.

Edited June 22, 2018 by mimaef

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, noncentric said:

 

It would be great to hear about more recent examples of "false positive" CHS emails, so we could have a more relevant discussion about the effectiveness of the algorithm.

 

 

My cache got a canned response with a false positive.  Three DNFs since the last find (6 in all) with two of those from cachers with under 100 finds.  16 visits in just under 2 years.  With the exception of some natural dirt cover, this one was perfectly fine and right where I left both physical stages.  The second stage is the hardest due to two possible locations to search and that's where the DNFs come in, as well as the numerous comments in the found logs as well.  Those found logs also tell the seekers where to look, if they're willing to read them.

https://coord.info/GC6VX0C

 

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Select this option if: ...

[3] You couldn't find a cache and it has several “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” or “Needs Maintenance” logs on the cache page with no cache owner response.

Do not select this option if:

* You didn't find the cache — use a “Didn’t Find It (DNF)” log

 

So which is it?  How are new cachers supposed to determine the right course of action, based on what's written above?  Do the several DNFs in the "and" qualifier require no cache owner response?  If not, then how many DNFs would warrant a NA log?  Why are caches with multiple DNFs now grounds for a possible NA log?  If the DNFs in the "and" qualifier require cache owner response in order to prevent the NA log, then it appears that GS is saying that DNFs now require some sort of response by the CO to prevent possible archival.  Since when did a DNF (or mutliple DNFs) indicate that a cache needs to be checked on by the CO or it might be grounds for a NA log?  As an experienced cacher, I understand what they're trying to do (and I can draw a line as to whether or not I believe a cache might be missing), but to a new cacher, they're basically telling them to file a NA log for a cache that has lots of DNFs unless the CO has responded on the cache page.  Why do I need to respond to DNFs to prevent a possible NA log from being slapped on my cache?

 

As a CO of some harder difficulty hides, I know I'd be frustrated if I kept getting NA logs on caches simply because they haven't been found and I haven't responded because I'm pretty sure they're still in place.  I wouldn't want to be "forced" to check on a cache, simply because a new-ish cacher couldn't find it, saw that it had multiple DNFs, and filed a NA log.  That type of nagging would cause me to reconsider my continuing desire to maintain and place new caches.  I place my caches with the intent to do as little maintenance as possible.  Thankfully, I don't have many newer cachers going after my hides so I haven't experienced this yet and really hope I don't either.  

 

I know the rebuttal to my complaint is that this is a minor inconvenience to a responsible cache owner and will help to catch those caches and COs who no longer maintain their caches.  If I'm proactive and post on the cache page, it shouldn't happen.  All I need to do is file the OM log to clear up any issues and life will go on.  I get that but I don't want to be "forced" to do something because a new cacher has filed a NA log with their DNF because it meets the requirements that GS has laid out.  I've always understood that NA logs are to be used when NM logs were filed first (wouldn't that be the preferred method with multiple DNFs anyway), as well as other issues related to safety, no trespassing, and in other situations that might warrant it, to be determined by the cacher at GZ.  Now it appears that a NA log is valid when there are a string of DNFs and it might be missing?

[+dprovan]

21 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

A problem gets taken care of before you can report it yourself -- this is bad?

If a cache gets archived when it shouldn't have been, that's bad. But the real problem is that the community has been removed from the process.

 

If thebruce0 likes the results, we can discuss that. What I was contesting was his claim that nothing's changed about NMs and NAs, not whether that change was bad or good. I do think it's a bad change, but I'm more concerned that thebruce0 doesn't think it's a change at all.

 

21 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

It seems with the differing opionions that this may be a regional thing (but I really think it is just personal perception). In my area, many cachers are much more proactive in logging DNFs, appropriate NMs and NAs. Many owners are more proactive with maintenance whether inspired by DNFs, NMs, or NAs, or CHS-resulting emails. And even reviewers seem more proactive. True, there are still abondoned caches, throwdowns, and unresponsive owners out there. But, things are better than a couple years ago (not to suggest things were bad then). And I believe the CHS has something to do with it (although there is the occasional person who not understanding gets offended by it). 

 

I've been assuming the quality question is regional, but sometimes I wonder. My area has always had very good quality for the entire 8 years I've been geocaching. I don't think it's better now despite all these changes, and I worry that the game has become less fun as it's shifted away from quality being driven by community involvement and towards quality being dictated by GS.

 

.

 

[+dprovan]

21 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

22 hours ago, dprovan said:

On 6/21/2018 at 8:37 AM, thebruce0 said:

You always have a chance to.

I give up. You're missing that I don't get a chance to because the cache has already been archived before I want to.

 

 

Absolutely priceless!

 

Roughly translated while I sat around doing nothing somebody else did something and that's bad!

This shows such a complete lack of understanding of my position that I have to believe you're trying to make me angry. I am one of the most consistent NM and NA posters in my area. It's bad enough that people like you complaining about a problem we don't have here has encouraged GS to force my reviewer to do a lot of work that he doesn't need to do, but what's worse is that the reviewers are being forced to act with unreasonable haste, thus treating the CO as a minion that's not behaving instead of as a friend playing a game with me.

[+thebruce0]

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So why were we told by a reviewer at a recent mega specifically not to ignore the CHS email but instead log an armchair OM if we know the cache is fine?

 

Hint: ignoring the email makes you appear to them as an absent CO.

 

That's a reviewer opinion that may or may not be  shared among others. Many regional reviewers do things differently than in other regions. I would say it's best to know your regional reviewers and their ethic, and err on the side of appeasing them, unless you think they're making very bad decisions, in which case you can report them or appeal to HQ.  Additionally, reviewers are human, they can judge whether you're ignoring the risk of a real issue, or if the nudge email really was innocuous as a false positive.  This reviewer sounds like he'd be extremely strict, assuming that if a CO doesn't do anything with the email that the CO did not receive the email and is inactive and would thus followup with immediate disabling of all that person's caches. Frankly, I find that ridiculous, presumptuous,  and overbearing. Thankfully we channels to deal with that sort of thing if it ever happens.

 

That said, I'm still baffled why COs think it's such a heavy burdensome sin to post a mere OM log on a listing with recent logs that might imply some form of issue, just to clear the flag and confirm there's no issue (I know of a handful of local high D caches with COs who do just this - many DNFs, periodically followed by an OM).  People can read the log content, they can decide if the OM log content is hand-waving away a real issue (it will continue to be raised) or if it's legitimate (even if it's an extremely rare circumstance like: "I'm on vacation for the month but received an email notice there might be a problem with this cache. I'm confident that the string of DNFs is normal and expected. I believe the cache is absolutely fine, and if there is a further problem then I'll check when I return, or review and possibly raise the D.")  Or if I'm away from internet access entirely for that time, I'll ask someone else I trust to manage my listings on my behalf. That is after all a part of my responsibility.

All of this has been discussed before.

Is that a lot for a new hider? Probably. But we're talking about such a rare set of circumstances, and everyone involved here is a human being who is capable of making fair judgments. The sky is not falling.

 

 

6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Why do I need to respond to DNFs to prevent a possible NA log from being slapped on my cache?

 

Cacher: "Hey, there's a bunch of DNFs on this cache I'd like to find. Do you think it's missing? Can I go for it?"

CO: "Yep, it's a tough one, and by the logs I'm confident it's still there."

Cacher: "Ok, thanks."

Demonstration of CO activity. No need to post a NA. OR NM.

 

If you choose to ignore someone's contact, then of course you run the risk being interpreted as an inactive owner. And frankly, I think that's good. I see no reason to ignore legitimate contact. And as usual, if there is any reasonable problem or abuse, HQ can be contacted to deal with it.

 

However at this point we're dealing with the question of a cacher posting a NA, not a reviewer checking on a cache with a string of DNFs and an ignored CHS nudge and all forms of contact.

 

 

6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

As a CO of some harder difficulty hides, I know I'd be frustrated if I kept getting NA logs on caches simply because they haven't been found and I haven't responded because I'm pretty sure they're still in place.

 

I'm sorry, if you purposefully and repeatedly ignore people's requests to confirm it's there, you run that risk.  So what are your options? Say (another rare instance) you get hounded by many people regularly to find out if the cache with so many DNFs is findable, and you can't keep up with replying or you get annoyed and want to ignore them:

- You can post a note to the listing; you can add a note to the description; you can raise the difficulty; you can post an OM; you can visit the cache confirm your belief, then post an OM... you have many options. If you choose the path of least or no work, then yep, you run the risk of being considered an inactive (and frankly ignorant, imo) CO.

 

For this cicrcumstance to actually result in a direct archival of your cache merely because of a string of DNFs, so many mitigating actions have to occur first! Let's ignore the CHS for now because this is about someone posting a NA after a string of DNFs.

1. Enough cachers posting DNFs with no intermittent finds

2. You unwilling or unable to show some recognition in any form of the implication of a string of DNFs at this point.

3. Perhaps at least one cacher willing to contact you before going to search despite the string of DNFs

4. Of those cachers at least one who will search without hearing back from you

5. Of cachers who attempt to find it, at least one with the mentality not to post only a DNF, nor a NM

6. Of those cachers at least one who would willingly post a NA

7. You as a CO who in no way responds any cacher at any point since #3

8. With the cacher posting a NA, you as a CO who ignores it and lets it stand without addressing it,

9. Assuming you have a super-proactive reviewer who immediately archives your cache with no effort to communicate with you or check if it needs archiving.

10. With the cache archived, it remains so even after contacting HQ appeals to attempt to explain why this whole situation was both in error and unavoidable on your part.

 

Let's see with the CHS how this could be avoided (without a NA being posted, which can be easily addressed), knowing a human reviewer does the archival, not the algorithm:

1. Raise the D

2. Respond to at least one cacher during a string of DNFs (you don't have to respond to all of them to prove you're active)

3. Post an OM when it could merely look like there's an issue

That's about it as I can tell. Cache safe.

 

 

6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I get that but I don't want to be "forced" to do something because a new cacher has filed a NA log with their DNF because it meets the requirements that GS has laid out.

 

Posting an OM log to address what you feel is an incorrect NA claim (by a new cacher or a veteran) is harder being "forced" to something reprehensible. It can happen any time. If it's a mistake on their part, deal with it - that's a CO responsbility. You should be ready for that to happen. Do it, shake it off, and move on. The sky is not falling.  If it continues to happen, and it shouldn't then there are channels to deal with that.

 

 

6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I've always understood that NA logs are to be used when NM logs were filed first (wouldn't that be the preferred method with multiple DNFs anyway), as well as other issues related to safety, no trespassing, and in other situations that might warrant it, to be determined by the cacher at GZ.  Now it appears that a NA log is valid when there are a string of DNFs and it might be missing?

 

...and there's no response from the CO. And a human reviewer actually believes the CO to truly be inactive.

 

Even after all this, a cacher poting a NA on a string of DNFs has nothing to do with the CHS.  Not sure how it got to this branch of the subject, which I think is more relevant to the quality cache community discussion thread.

 

More relevant is whether the CHS sends a nudge email merely for the existence of a string of DNFs, and what the reviewer might decide IF the CO ignores the nudge.  See secondary points #1-3 above.

 

 

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

If a cache gets archived when it shouldn't have been, that's bad. But the real problem is that the community has been removed from the process.

 

Nope, they have not. You can still post a NA. You can still post a NM. And you're still encouraged to do so. And they are treated exactly the same as they always have been. You're blatantly wrong on this point. The reviewers however have been given leeway to be more proactive in taking action without waiting for specific log types. I see no problem with this, assuming their regional community is growing lazy and reviewer judgments are accurate.

 

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

GS [forces] my reviewer to do a lot of work that he doesn't need to do...the reviewers are being forced to act with unreasonable haste

 

Wow, that certainly seems unfair for our volunteer reviewers. Please explain this clear injustice!

Edited June 22, 2018 by thebruce0

[+The Magna Defender]

19 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

I heard thru the grapevine that the next site promotion will earn points only for NM and NA logs. That should help clean things up. 

 

 

Please elaborate 

[+barefootjeff]

On 23/06/2018 at 4:37 AM, thebruce0 said:

On 22/06/2018 at 7:37 PM, barefootjeff said:

So why were we told by a reviewer at a recent mega specifically not to ignore the CHS email but instead log an armchair OM if we know the cache is fine?

 

Hint: ignoring the email makes you appear to them as an absent CO.

 

That's a reviewer opinion that may or may not be  shared among others. Many regional reviewers do things differently than in other regions. I would say it's best to know your regional reviewers and their ethic, and err on the side of appeasing them, unless you think they're making very bad decisions, in which case you can report them or appeal to HQ.  Additionally, reviewers are human, they can judge whether you're ignoring the risk of a real issue, or if the nudge email really was innocuous as a false positive.  This reviewer sounds like he'd be extremely strict, assuming that if a CO doesn't do anything with the email that the CO did not receive the email and is inactive and would thus followup with immediate disabling of all that person's caches. Frankly, I find that ridiculous, presumptuous,  and overbearing. Thankfully we channels to deal with that sort of thing if it ever happens.

 

 

He was on the panel of reviewers at the mega's "meet the reviewers" session and it was part of their prepared address (in other words, not an off-the-cuff response to a question from the audience) so either it's a position agreed upon by all the Australian reviewers or it's what HQ have told them to tell COs who get false positives. In any case, it seems an OM log is the only thing that'll reset the CHS once it's gone off and if you ignore it, it won't go away and your cache will just keep appearing on their list of caches that "might" need attention.

[+edexter]

The Bruce's post on Tuesday at 10:08 is a pretty clear description of how the process works in practice.  The only real life change is that CO are now expected to respond to an NM log.  It's obvious that in the past posting an NM log had little effect since they were ignored 75% of the time.  Again, I'm surprised by all the differing viewpoints about the simple expectation that a CO communicate with the community.  When someone posts an NM log on one of my caches, I respond in some way.  It's easy and takes 30 seconds.  Folks who can't be bothered to type a response are pretty unlikely to maintain a cache in the wild.  This seems completely obvious in theory and is completely evident in practice...

[+STNolan]

12 hours ago, edexter said:

Again, I'm surprised by all the differing viewpoints about the simple expectation that a CO communicate with the community.  When someone posts an NM log on one of my caches, I respond in some way.  It's easy and takes 30 seconds.  Folks who can't be bothered to type a response are pretty unlikely to maintain a cache in the wild.  This seems completely obvious in theory and is completely evident in practice...

 

I think the issue here is simple... some people take a "NM" as a personal affront. They shouldn't! A needs maintenance log isn't intended to slander or offend the CO, it's meant to be communicative between a person in the field who found your cache, and the owner who is responsible for ensuring the cache is in good condition.

 

Getting down to the nitty gritty, a Needs Maintenance Icon is both a tool for hiders and finders and is used far too infrequently. As a CO, I love receiving NMs, it lets me know that I may need to head out to a cache hide SOONER rather than later. This is especially true since I have some caches in far flung places now that I've moved and coordinating maintenance may take a bit longer.

Edited June 24, 2018 by STNolan

[+dprovan]

On 6/22/2018 at 11:37 AM, thebruce0 said:

Wow, that certainly seems unfair for our volunteer reviewers. Please explain this clear injustice!

You read the forums as much as I do. 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.

 

I didn't say it was an injustice. I just think it's a waste of the reviewer's time.

[Nomex]

5 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".

[+Harry Dolphin]

Lacky  Temporarily Disable Listing 05/25/2018 Temporarily disabled - missing.

Cacher 3  Didn't find it 10/30/2017 May have just been all the leaves. After searching at and around cords for a while, no luck.

Cacher 5  Found it 03/12/2017 Yay! My first find of a cache created by a friend irl. Tftc!

CO  Write note 02/18/2017 Added our zombie friend "Decomposing Dad" to this cache so he can go adventuring. Good luck "Dad"!

Cacher 9  Found it 11/23/2016 TFTC. Great loot in the container!

And sometimes, one has no idea what's going on.  Doesn't seem to be CHS.  But leaves me curious.  Maybe a neighbor complained?

[+Isonzo Karst]

Harry Dolphin, it makes a bit more sense if you read all of it-  the reviewer note posted at the same time as the disable, with a GeocachingHQ ticket number makes it clear that there's behind the scenes communication.  And I doubt this relates in any way the CHS.

[+thebruce0]

11 hours ago, Nomex said:

17 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)