Ignored Needs Maintenance logs

7.5k · February 7, 2019

29 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Visit the cache's location

Within how long? What happens if I want to visit the cache's location, but it turns out I can't make it? Those are the questions. The rest of your list is a different scenario where actually having a chance to check on the cache is an alternative.

The whole point is that I don't think it's a huge lapse in responsibility to have higher priorities in my life that prevent me from checking on a cache that could possibly be missing. In particular, I don't think it makes much difference, if any, to the experience of anyone seeking the cache for a CO to make that choice.

I'm taking the effort to make this argument because this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say prevailing attitudes are making COs the minions of the masses. How dare I not rush out and check the cache. Hiding and maintaining caches is too important for COs to do it just for fun.

7.5k · February 7, 2019

28 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

We may agree to differ on the merits and consequences of the CHS, but these are Geocaching 101 basics of cache ownership: without maintenance, today’s cache is tomorrow’s litter.

Not clear how to answer that. A cache that's in place was successfully maintained even after it's accidentally archived. A cache that isn't anywhere can't be considered litter. Complaining that I haven't gone out to look for a cache that isn't there is preposterous. But the thing that bothers me most is you suggesting that the basic rule of cache ownership is that the guidelines must be followed to the letter even when there are logical reasons to not worry about it.

9k · February 7, 2019

I'm certainly not the one who's not getting it.

1.3k · February 7, 2019

6 hours ago, dprovan said:

Not clear how to answer that. A cache that's in place was successfully maintained even after it's accidentally archived. A cache that isn't anywhere can't be considered litter. Complaining that I haven't gone out to look for a cache that isn't there is preposterous. But the thing that bothers me most is you suggesting that the basic rule of cache ownership is that the guidelines must be followed to the letter even when there are logical reasons to not worry about it.

I’ll have one more go...

You said something like, you didn’t believe there was a problem with your cache even though the CHS and/or reviewer had concluded there was. (The details really aren’t important.)

Regardless of CHS / reviewer action, if you say, there was probably nothing wrong with the cache, I believe you.

So, for whatever reason, and by whatever process, your listing has now been archived, but in all likelihood your cache is still in place. With no one looking for it and no one maintaining it, it is already effectively litter. As time passes and the cache deteriorates, it will undoubtedly become litter.

I see nothing illogical about suggesting that you check for yourself, and recover the cache if (as you suspect) it is still in place. This is not about slavishly following rules or guidelines.

7.5k · February 7, 2019

5 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

You said something like, you didn’t believe there was a problem with your cache even though the CHS and/or reviewer had concluded there was. (The details really aren’t important.)

No, the details are important: I said I wasn't sure the cache was missing and, just like the reviewer, I kept an open mind about it. But once the process concluded that it was missing, that also satisfied me that it was, in the same way it satisfied the reviewer that it was.

1.3k · February 7, 2019

27 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No, the details are important: I said I wasn't sure the cache was missing and, just like the reviewer, I kept an open mind about it. But once the process concluded that it was missing, that also satisfied me that it was, in the same way it satisfied the reviewer that it was.

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. “The process concluded it was missing”? Was it missing or not? Only one way to find out...

February 7, 2019

3 hours ago, dprovan said:

No, the details are important: I said I wasn't sure the cache was missing and, just like the reviewer, I kept an open mind about it. But once the process concluded that it was missing, that also satisfied me that it was, in the same way it satisfied the reviewer that it was.

I can't even begin to describe how many of your assumptions are so wrong on so many levels.

The process is not about the cache, as much as it is about the cache owner. There are no "bad caches" (as you put it), only unresponsive cache owners, that seal the fate of the Listing page.

I can't tell you the number of times cache owners have asked for more time, and I was happy to grant it.

I can't tell you the number of times a previous Finder verified the cache placement, and I was happy that is was still there in spite of no response from the CO.

Even after Archival, I can't tell you the number of times I've had CO's email me afterwards but due to [insert things in life more important than geocaching here] couldn't respond to my Note, and tell me the cache was there all along, with a polite request to Unarchive the Listing page, which I was happy to oblige.

I'm sorry to say, that your two experiences (one in which you DID respond, and one in which you DID NOT), do not begin to demonstrate the entire spectrum of possible outcomes that are available to an active cache owner. Responding to my Note is the safest option to keep the Listing page active, and it has been that way for the nearly 15 years that I've been Reviewing. The only thing that has changed in those years has been the volume of Listing pages that have to be looked at.

7.5k · February 7, 2019

8 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. “The process concluded it was missing”? Was it missing or not? Only one way to find out...

OK, I guess I'll just leave you to make those pointless journeys. If logical deduction based on available evidence is good enough for the reviewer, it's good enough for me.

7.5k · February 7, 2019

4 hours ago, Nomex said:

I can't even begin to describe how many of your assumptions are so wrong on so many levels.

Nothing you said seemed to contradict any of my assumptions, so I guess I might as well stop trying to explain myself.

4 hours ago, Nomex said:

I'm sorry to say, that your two experiences (one in which you DID respond, and one in which you DID NOT), do not begin to demonstrate the entire spectrum of possible outcomes that are available to an active cache owner. Responding to my Note is the safest option to keep the Listing page active, and it has been that way for the nearly 15 years that I've been Reviewing.

How many times do I have say that I DID NOT WANT to keep the listing page active? I know every one of my options, and in both cases, I picked the one that led to the outcome I thought was optimum.

9k · February 7, 2019

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

How many times do I have say that I DID NOT WANT to keep the listing page active? I know every one of my options, and in both cases, I picked the one that led to the outcome I thought was optimum.

You cannot "not want to keep it active", yet want to leave it "in case" someone happens to find it. It's one or the other. If you do not want to keep it active, then archive it. And know that it is YOUR responsibility to pick it up, or have someone else pick it up. Otherwise YOU litter your property. NO ONE has confirmed it's there or not. YOU are making an assumption at that point. It's that simple, man. DO something about it.

5.6k · February 7, 2019

10 hours ago, dprovan said:

No, the details are important: I said I wasn't sure the cache was missing and, just like the reviewer, I kept an open mind about it. But once the process concluded that it was missing, that also satisfied me that it was, in the same way it satisfied the reviewer that it was.

The TD and eventual archival is not about whether the cache is there or not. It is about the CO being responsive or not. I've seen a cache locally that was TD, which I found (the TD happened between my data load and find) and logged, that still got archived because the CO never responded - one way or the other.

The process is:

There appears to be a problem with the cache, TD.

No response for owner (notes/finds by other cachers have no bearing).

Archived for no respose.

Where in there is the assumption that it is missing? "A problem" could be lots of things, yes, missing is one but not the only one.

Where is the conclusion it's missing? None, just concluded the owner did not respond, 'the problem' wasn't fixed and so the listing is archived.

Another point, an assumption is not a proven fact. Assuming the cache is gone has no bearing on the whether the cache is there or not.

6.8k · February 7, 2019

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

The process is:

There appears to be a problem with the cache, TD.

No response for owner (notes/finds by other cachers have no bearing).

Archived for no respose.

The process for the D3 cache I quoted earlier looks like:

DNFs and NM by inexperienced searchers that probably triggered a CHS email
Response from CO in WN explaining that the cache is tricky to find and is most likely still there, but he'll check soon when next in the area
14 days later the reviewer TDs it anyway with a threat to archive it if the owner doesn't respond within 28 days.
CO drops everything else he was doing to check the cache and, as he expected, it's still there.

It seems the owner responding isn't enough anymore. I'm guessing - and this is only a guess but it gels with what I've observed - that the reviewer here is enforcing the three options the CHS email gives - an OM to say the cache has been checked and repaired/replaced if necessary, an owner TD if that can't be done immediately or an owner Archive.

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

Another point, an assumption is not a proven fact. Assuming the cache is gone has no bearing on the whether the cache is there or not.

Schrodinger's cache?

6.8k · February 7, 2019

3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

You cannot "not want to keep it active", yet want to leave it "in case" someone happens to find it. It's one or the other.

There are some of my older hides that I'm blase about. All the locals have found them and they're not P&Gs so the here-today-gone-tomorrow app-wielding newbies aren't interested. As long as the caches are fine, I'm happy enough to leave them there, but if they got a CHS ping I'd probably just archive them (and retrieve the containers) rather than go to the trouble of defending them. Ones like GC5WGTZ for example, that only had two finds last year and a grand total of fifteen in its nearly four years of life. It has a robust container well protected from the elements in a place no muggle is ever going to come across, so maintenance isn't an issue (the only OMs I've logged have been to rescue TBs that were languishing there for too long) so I'm content to let it be even though I don't especially want to hang onto it.

Edited February 7, 2019 by barefootjeff

9k · February 8, 2019

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The process for the D3 cache I quoted earlier looks like:

DNFs and NM by inexperienced searchers that probably triggered a CHS email

Response from CO in WN explaining that the cache is tricky to find and is most likely still there, but he'll check soon when next in the area

14 days later the reviewer TDs it anyway with a threat to archive it if the owner doesn't respond within 28 days.

CO drops everything else he was doing to check the cache and, as he expected, it's still there.

It seems the owner responding isn't enough anymore. I'm guessing - and this is only a guess but it gels with what I've observed - that the reviewer here is enforcing the three options the CHS email gives - an OM to say the cache has been checked and repaired/replaced if necessary, an owner TD if that can't be done immediately or an owner Archive.

"and NM".

In other words, the cache was sitting with a "This cache might need maintenance" public front-facing flag, which shows in searches - not the detail of his note in the log history. Since the flag was active for 14 days, the reviewer disabled. The CO could have posted an OM with an explanation, OR asked his reviewer what the best course of action would be given the effort needed to check on it (if only to avoid possible 'bad books' for posting an OM without a physical checkup).

No, the time period and process is, by what I can see, still in line with general CO responsibilities. The CO left the NM flag active for an extended amount of time. A reviewer decided to act on that. They don't have to if they don't feel it's necessary, but they are not obligated to heed a Note posted without removal of the maintenance flag. Regardless of the CO explanation.

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

You cannot "not want to keep it active", yet want to leave it "in case" someone happens to find it. It's one or the other.

There are some of my older hides that I'm blase about. All the locals have found them and they're not P&Gs so the here-today-gone-tomorrow app-wielding newbies aren't interested. As long as the caches are fine, I'm happy enough to leave them there, but if they got a CHS ping I'd probably just archive them (and retrieve the containers) rather than go to the trouble of defending them. Ones like GC5WGTZ for example, that only had two finds last year and a grand total of fifteen in its nearly four years of life. It has a robust container well protected from the elements in a place no muggle is ever going to come across, so maintenance isn't an issue (the only OMs I've logged have been to rescue TBs that were languishing there for too long) so I'm content to let it be even though I don't especially want to hang onto it.

Sounds good. Of course the other option if you don't "want" to hang on to a cache yet let them remain active for people to find, is to adopt it. As mentioned a lot. Or wait until you might archive it, then see if anyone wants to adopt it instead. Some people really love some caches and would hate to see them archived, and would gladly adopt it to keep it alive; but they can't if the owner jumps straight to archival without thinking about that. But if you want to keep it (and thus accept maintenance responsibilities, including working with reviewers if/when necessary), then that's just dandy.

6.8k · February 8, 2019

3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Of course the other option if you don't "want" to hang on to a cache yet let them remain active for people to find, is to adopt it.

That of course depends on finding someone who would want to adopt it. We're a small community, I could just about count the number of active cachers on one hand, and in that example I quoted (GC5WGTZ), of the three finders who awarded it FPs, one lives out of town (Sydney) and one is no longer active. The third one, maybe, but no, as I said, I'm content to let it just sit there as it's unlikely to ever need maintenance and who knows, it might get another find or two this year or next. There are plenty of exceptional caches around here that are worth preserving should the CO lose interest and want to adopt them out, but that one isn't one of them.

6.8k · February 8, 2019

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

"and NM".

In other words, the cache was sitting with a "This cache might need maintenance" public front-facing flag, which shows in searches - not the detail of his note in the log history. Since the flag was active for 14 days, the reviewer disabled. The CO could have posted an OM with an explanation, OR asked his reviewer what the best course of action would be given the effort needed to check on it (if only to avoid possible 'bad books' for posting an OM without a physical checkup).

No, the time period and process is, by what I can see, still in line with general CO responsibilities. The CO left the NM flag active for an extended amount of time. A reviewer decided to act on that. They don't have to if they don't feel it's necessary, but they are not obligated to heed a Note posted without removal of the maintenance flag. Regardless of the CO explanation.

Gosh, 14 days, what a calamity. Is that really an extended amount of time? I'd consider more than few months to be an extended period of time for an NM, not just a couple of weeks - I've had new caches go longer than that before someone gets around to claiming FTF. As I read the guidelines, responding to an NM with a WN if you can't attend to it immediately is the proper thing to do, especially in a situation like this where the CO was quite confident the cache wasn't missing and so didn't want to disable it. An OM should only be logged after the case is closed and any needed maintenance has been performed. As I said earlier, it was in early January, right in the middle of the summer school holidays, so the CO might well have been hundreds or thousands of kilometres away at the time the NM was logged. Also remember that prior to this, the maintenance enforcement reviewer here didn't get involved in NMs, he only stepped in if there was an NA or if a cache had been left disabled for too long (and on this, three months seems to be his usual trigger point). If an NM went unheeded, it was up to someone in the community to log an NA to get him involved. Why would the CO even think to contact the reviewer about an NM he couldn't get to for a few weeks?

9k · February 8, 2019

30 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh, 14 days, what a calamity. Is that really an extended amount of time? I'd consider more than few months to be an extended period of time for an NM

Then your quarrel is with the reviewer. If the reviewer's judgment is wrong, Appeals will side with you. If it's correct, then you are wrong. The reviewer is the authority over the CO, whether the CO likes it or not.

31 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

As I read the guidelines, responding to an NM with a WN if you can't attend to it immediately is the proper thing to do

And once again, it may be, the reviewer is not obligated to see things your way merely because you post a note.

32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Also remember that prior to this, the maintenance enforcement reviewer here didn't get involved in NMs, he only stepped in if there was an NA or if a cache had been left disabled for too long (and on this, three months seems to be his usual trigger point). If an NM went unheeded, it was up to someone in the community to log an NA to get him involved.

Nope. Maybe somewhere. But not everywhere. Again, that's the reviewer's choice. Not a mandate.

57 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Of course the other option if you don't "want" to hang on to a cache yet let them remain active for people to find, is to adopt it.

That of course depends on finding someone who would want to adopt it.

Of course. I didn't say it was the option you should have chosen. I said it's an option in such a cache situation. It is. Maintain, Archive, Pick up, Get someone else to, Or adopt.

6.8k · February 8, 2019

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh, 14 days, what a calamity. Is that really an extended amount of time? I'd consider more than few months to be an extended period of time for an NM

Then your quarrel is with the reviewer. If the reviewer's judgment is wrong, Appeals will side with you. If it's correct, then you are wrong. The reviewer is the authority over the CO, whether the CO likes it or not

How is it my quarrel with the reviewer when it wasn't my cache? I'm just saying I don't think 14 days is an extended amount of time, considering there are caches out there with outstanding NMs going back years. The result of this reviewer action, presumably in response to the CHS, was a retort from the CO directed at the newbie who logged the NM, and who in turn is probably now terrified of ever logging an NM again no matter how justified it might be.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Also remember that prior to this, the maintenance enforcement reviewer here didn't get involved in NMs, he only stepped in if there was an NA or if a cache had been left disabled for too long (and on this, three months seems to be his usual trigger point). If an NM went unheeded, it was up to someone in the community to log an NA to get him involved.

Nope. Maybe somewhere. But not everywhere. Again, that's the reviewer's choice. Not a mandate.

I didn't say everywhere, I said that prior to just recently I haven't seen the maintenance enforcement reviewer here get involved with NMs. This seems to be something new here, and I don't think it's a good thing as it's blurring the distinction between log types DNF, NM and NA, all three of which score negatively in the CHS and so can now lead to reviewer action that would previously only have happened in response to an NA from the community.

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Of course. I didn't say it was the option you should have chosen. I said it's an option in such a cache situation. It is. Maintain, Archive, Pick up, Get someone else to, Or adopt.

I haven't had to choose anything yet. In answer to your 'You cannot "not want to keep it active", yet want to leave it "in case" someone happens to find it'. It's one or the other.' response to dprovan, I just gave an example of some of my older caches that are now getting few finds if any, where my want, as in desire, to keep them going has dimished to the point where, if they copped a CHS ping, I'd probably just archive and collect rather than mount a defence. But until that happens I'm happy enough to leave them active for anyone who still wants to search for them, and do a check occasionally at my own time and leisure when I'm in the vicinity and the weather is compatible with their T-rating. Isn't that what I agreed to do as a CO?

3.5k · February 8, 2019

20 hours ago, Nomex said:

I can't tell you the number of times a previous Finder verified the cache placement, and I was happy that is was still there in spite of no response from the CO.

These are the cases that I find most confounding. When the cache is still there, but the cache has been TD'd by a Reviewer because of outstanding NM's or strings of DNF's - then would a Reviewer re-enable the cache if it's clear by subsequent logs that the cache is actually still in place? Could be new finds by cachers that still have disabled caches on their device or WN's by prior finders that took the prerogative to check on the cache.

The CO might not respond because (1) they're no longer interested in geocaching and don't care, (2) they're dead, or (3) they see that it's still being found and don't realize that they still need to log an OM. Is it 'allowed' for Reviewers to negate NM/NA logs and 'allow' these caches to remain on the gameboard?

14 hours ago, The Jester said:

The TD and eventual archival is not about whether the cache is there or not. It is about the CO being responsive or not. I've seen a cache locally that was TD, which I found (the TD happened between my data load and find) and logged, that still got archived because the CO never responded - one way or the other.

The process is:

There appears to be a problem with the cache, TD.

No response for owner (notes/finds by other cachers have no bearing).

Archived for no respose.

I've seen this too and just checked to see if the one that first came to my mind was the same one you're referring to, but no, it was a different experienced local cacher that found the cache between the Reviewer TD and Reviewer Archival. I'd found the cache before and was in the area, so went out to take a look. The cache was sitting there in its hiding spot. The container was intact, but not a type that is watertight, and the contents were wet - which was the problem reported in the NM two weeks before it was TD'd.

1.3k · February 8, 2019

18 hours ago, dprovan said:

OK, I guess I'll just leave you to make those pointless journeys. If logical deduction based on available evidence is good enough for the reviewer, it's good enough for me.

From what I can see, the reviewer had deduced that the ‘cache appears to be in need of owner intervention’. From telling us initially that you weren’t convinced that there was a problem, this has now become a logical proof that the cache is missing?

But this is really besides the point ... as well as being off topic, sorry!

The journey would not be pointless. If the cache is there, you can recycle. If not, you can rest easy that you’ve done your best not to add to the problem of litter. :-)

1.3k · February 8, 2019

Just now, IceColdUK said:

The journey would not be pointless. If the cache is there, you can recycle. If not, you can rest easy that you’ve done your best not to add to the problem of litter. :-)

The smiley is because this is a win-win.

7.5k · February 8, 2019

3 hours ago, noncentric said:

These are the cases that I find most confounding. When the cache is still there, but the cache has been TD'd by a Reviewer because of outstanding NM's or strings of DNF's - then would a Reviewer re-enable the cache if it's clear by subsequent logs that the cache is actually still in place? Could be new finds by cachers that still have disabled caches on their device or WN's by prior finders that took the prerogative to check on the cache.

1. The cache could be a throwdown.

2. See https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

Quote

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

9k · February 8, 2019

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm just saying I don't think 14 days is an extended amount of time, considering there are caches out there with outstanding NMs going back years.

You know what they say about precedence.

A reviewer has decided that 14 days is too long. Long enough, to warrant direct intervention. Doesn't matter what you think. The reviewer is the one who needs to be convinced.

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The result of this reviewer action, presumably in response to the CHS, was a retort from the CO directed at the newbie who logged the NM, and who in turn is probably now terrified of ever logging an NM again no matter how justified it might be.

Sounds like the CO did the wrong thing.

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I didn't say everywhere, I said that prior to just recently I haven't seen the maintenance enforcement reviewer here get involved with NMs. This seems to be something new here, and I don't think it's a good thing as it's blurring the distinction between log types DNF, NM and NA, all three of which score negatively in the CHS and so can now lead to reviewer action that would previously only have happened in response to an NA from the community.

If it's something that would have only happened there then I'm not interested. Because your reviewer is not my reviewer, nor is your reviewer any other reviewer. Let alone acting according to a systematic change that is applicable to all reviewer. Thus, irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with a reviewer's decision, take it up with HQ.

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In answer to your 'You cannot "not want to keep it active", yet want to leave it "in case" someone happens to find it'. It's one or the other.' response to dprovan, I just gave an example of some of my older caches that are now getting few finds if any, where my want, as in desire, to keep them going has dimished to the point where, if they copped a CHS ping, I'd probably just archive and collect rather than mount a defence.

Then your desire is to keep it going. And as you say, until there's a reported problem, or potential problem, and even after, you're willing to maintain it or visit it and retrieve it. I see no problem with that. You don't want it archived right now. dprovan said that because the reviewer disabled it, he wants it archived. But left it sitting there until the reviewer made it die. That is not the same as the situation you described.

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But until that happens I'm happy enough to leave them active for anyone who still wants to search for them, and do a check occasionally at my own time and leisure when I'm in the vicinity and the weather is compatible with their T-rating. Isn't that what I agreed to do as a CO?

All except for "at my own time and leisure", yes. If the reviewer thinks "your time and leisure" is not reasonable, then the listing will have action taken on it.

9k · February 8, 2019

41 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

4 hours ago, noncentric said:

These are the cases that I find most confounding. When the cache is still there, but the cache has been TD'd by a Reviewer because of outstanding NM's or strings of DNF's - then would a Reviewer re-enable the cache if it's clear by subsequent logs that the cache is actually still in place? Could be new finds by cachers that still have disabled caches on their device or WN's by prior finders that took the prerogative to check on the cache.

1. The cache could be a throwdown.

2. See https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

Also, the reviewer won't re-enable a cache they disabled merely because followup logs are finds. That happens all too often when a cache still has problems. Finds alone aren't verification a cache is available (let alone trusting the text of find logs, and posted by people on a disabled cache no less, meaning there's a higher chance some people just want the find even if the cache is missing). If the reason for disabling is that it needs to be checked on, then the CO needs to be the one to enable it (whether they checked it themselves, or feel confident someone else's check is sufficient). Again, falling back to owner responsiveness with the listing.

6.8k · February 8, 2019

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If it's something that would have only happened there then I'm not interested. Because your reviewer is not my reviewer, nor is your reviewer any other reviewer. Let alone acting according to a systematic change that is applicable to all reviewer. Thus, irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with a reviewer's decision, take it up with HQ.

You said the CO should have contacted the reviewer rather than just posting a WN if he couldn't clear the NM immediately, and my response was that the reviewer here never used to get involved in NMs so I doubted the CO would have imagined a need to contact him. How is that relevant to your reviewer?

9k · February 8, 2019

Exactly.

So how is it relevant to this discussion? It's only relevant to your reviewer. It is not a universal mandate of all reviewers. It's a once-off decision made by your reviewer. Or maybe a regular process for your reviewer. I don't know. So again, it's between you and your reviewer, and/or appeals. That's as far as that situation goes.

If you're trying to understand your reviewer's judgment by discussing it in the forum, then that's different, and we can only provide so much input before the discussion will be fruitless. And you should talk to your reviewer.

Edited February 8, 2019 by thebruce0

6.8k · February 8, 2019

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Exactly.

So how is it relevant to this discussion? It's only relevant to your reviewer. It is not a universal mandate of all reviewers. It's a once-off decision made by your reviewer. Or maybe a regular process for your reviewer. I don't know. So again, it's between you and your reviewer, and/or appeals. That's as far as that situation goes.

I was replying to something you said the CO should have done, to point out why the CO probably didn't do that. Doesn't that make it relevant to the discussion?

3.5k · February 8, 2019

8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

1. The cache could be a throwdown.

2. See https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=38&pgid=57

To be fair, any cache that is found "could be a throwdown". Guess I should've clarified in the post that you responded to that I meant "assuming no indications of a throwdown".

I mentioned further up this page that I went to look at a cache that had been archived because of an unaddressed NM for being wet. In that particular case, I had found the cache before and saw it was still there after the Archive. The logbook I signed 2+ years ago was in it. Not a throwdown. But still wet.
Similar thing happened with this cache, which ended up being archived. Although in this case, the cache was in perfect shape, just harder to find the D1 rating would suggest.
And then there was another cache that a CO archived after getting a couple DNF's, because the CO had moved and wasn't going to check on it. I was pretty sure it was not missing, as I'd found it before and knew it was tough because of the camo. I contacted the CO and they said I could keep the cache if it was still there. It was, with the original logbook that I signed 3+ years before. Not a throwdown.
I can understand why some cachers make it a point to look for archived caches. I've only looked for ones that I've found before, so it's not something I'd do to "pad" my finds and it would depend entirely on whether the log history suggests it might still be there or not.

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Also, the reviewer won't re-enable a cache they disabled merely because followup logs are finds. That happens all too often when a cache still has problems.

Is that the official policy? My question was aimed at a Reviewer and asked if they are "allowed". Whether a cacher in this forum feels that they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to my question. I asked an objective question - allowed or not allowed.

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Finds alone aren't verification a cache is available (let alone trusting the text of find logs, and posted by people on a disabled cache no less, meaning there's a higher chance some people just want the find even if the cache is missing).

Ah yes, because cachers are always trying to "pad their find count".

Keep in mind that if a previous finder of the cache is the one "verifying" it, then they aren't gaining another smiley because they can't re-find it for another smiley.

9k · February 8, 2019

Hey, let's recap shall we?

On 2/7/2019 at 4:22 PM, barefootjeff said:

The process for the D3 cache I quoted earlier looks like:

DNFs and NM by inexperienced searchers that probably triggered a CHS email

Response from CO in WN

21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"and NM".

In other words, the cache was sitting with a "This cache might need maintenance" public front-facing flag, which shows in searches - not the detail of his note in the log history. Since the flag was active for 14 days, the reviewer disabled. The CO could have posted an OM with an explanation, OR asked his reviewer what the best course of action would be given the effort needed to check on it.

20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Gosh, 14 days, what a calamity. Is that really an extended amount of time? ...

Also remember that prior to this, the maintenance enforcement reviewer here didn't get involved in NMs, he only stepped in if there was an NA or if a cache had been left disabled for too long

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Then your quarrel is with the reviewer. If the reviewer's judgment is wrong, Appeals will side with you. If it's correct, then you are wrong. The reviewer is the authority over the CO, whether the CO likes it or not.

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

How is it my quarrel with the reviewer when it wasn't my cache?* I'm just saying I don't think 14 days is an extended amount of time, considering there are caches out there with outstanding NMs going back years.

(* because you're complaining about this situation, btw, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing)

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Maybe somewhere. But not everywhere. Again, that's the reviewer's choice. Not a mandate.

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I didn't say everywhere, I said that prior to just recently I haven't seen the maintenance enforcement reviewer here get involved with NMs.*

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If it's something that would have only happened there then I'm not interested. Because your reviewer is not my reviewer, nor is your reviewer any other reviewer. Let alone acting according to a systematic change that is applicable to all reviewer. Thus, irrelevant to this discussion. If you have a problem with a reviewer's decision, take it up with HQ.

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

You said the CO should have contacted the reviewer* rather than just posting a WN if he couldn't clear the NM immediately, and my response was that the reviewer here never used to get involved in NMs so I doubted the CO would have imagined a need to contact him. How is that relevant to your reviewer?

(* I mentioned a couple of other actions the CO could have taken, one of them was to ask the reviewer the best course of action)

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Exactly.

So how is it relevant to this discussion? It's only relevant to your reviewer*. It is not a universal mandate of all reviewers. It's a once-off decision made by your reviewer.

(* which to my understanding is the reviewer of this cache)

47 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I was replying to something you said the CO should have done, to point out why the CO probably didn't do that. Doesn't that make it relevant to the discussion?

And I was explaining alternate courses of action the CO could have taken in that specific situation, which you still seem to have a problem with.

9k · February 8, 2019

5 minutes ago, noncentric said:

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Also, the reviewer won't re-enable a cache they disabled merely because followup logs are finds. That happens all too often when a cache still has problems.

Is that the official policy? My question was aimed at a Reviewer and asked if they are "allowed". Whether a cacher in this forum feels that they should or shouldn't is irrelevant to my question. I asked an objective question - allowed or not allowed.

Okay, well let's wait for an answer then.

To my knowledge, (you can skip if you don't want to read my opinion), sure, I'd think they are allowed, but will they? Unlikely, because it would seem to go against the very purpose of the disable - 1st hand verification from the CO that a cache is findable. It also puts the onus on the reviewer for assuming that a cache is findable, rather than on the cache's owner himself.

8 minutes ago, noncentric said:

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Finds alone aren't verification a cache is available (let alone trusting the text of find logs, and posted by people on a disabled cache no less, meaning there's a higher chance some people just want the find even if the cache is missing).

Ah yes, because cachers are always trying to "pad their find count".

Keep in mind that if a previous finder of the cache is the one "verifying" it, then they aren't gaining another smiley because they can't re-find it for another smiley.

Oh brother. Those people do exist. I didn't say everyone does this. I wasn't saying anything about previous finders either.

In regards to the question of a previous finder's report - if I were a CO, and I knew that a previous finder was able to verify my cache was still there, it would be me who would still have to post the OM and explanation. And I would have to be implicitly trusting that previous finder's report (from two aspects: trust their word, and trust their ability; ie, no mistakes). Without a first-hand check, my best "okay" is based on trusting someone else's report. If there IS anything wrong with the cache, then the onus is on me, as the cache owner who confirmed "everything is okay", not the person who told me it was okay. So, sure I could trust a previous finder, and in most cases that would be just fine. But ideally, the whole purpose of this system is that as the cache owner, you are the only one to verify that the listing and the container are 100% in sync with each other and findable as you intended, and as the cache owner, you are the one who has to put the stamp of first-hand approval on the listing when it's showing as active to be found.

Of course there is never a guarantee that a cache will be findable, even immediately after a first-hand check; anything number of things could happen to the container. But wouldn't you rather be able to say with 100% integrity that you ensured that your cache was findable to the best of your ability (since no one else is capable of doing so)? That is the whole point.

As the cache owner, you are responsible for the state of your cache and your listing. No one else.

To bring it back around, the whole point is that finds posted after a NM are not reliable in and of themselves as indication that a cache is good to be found. Sure, generally speaking they're a good indicator, but they aren't first-hand confirmation with the reliability of cache owner observation. Thus trusting them is always a risk, even if a tiny one.

4.2k · February 9, 2019

1 hour ago, noncentric said:

Similar thing happened with this cache, which ended up being archived. Although in this case, the cache was in perfect shape, just harder to find the D1 rating would suggest.

No sympathy. Personally I would not mind if more D1 caches (that aren't D1) were archived after several DNFs.

I found a well hidden cache after several DNFs. The log and cache were in perfect condition (In this case I think the rating was reasonable). I gave it a favourite point. Then a NM by the reviewer was placed on it. I think from memory I might have mentioned then the cache was good. Ignored, the cache was archived. I guess because of no response by the CO...BUT the cache was good. Oh course I had no idea if what I found was the original cache or a replacement by another cacher, but I can't see how the reviewer would know this either.

3.5k · February 9, 2019

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Okay, well let's wait for an answer then.

If there is one. I don't think Reviewers are obliged to answer those questions. My curiosity was peaked by Nomex's statement that said "I can't tell you the number of times a previous Finder verified the cache placement, and I was happy that is was still there in spite of no response from the CO." I wondered whether that meant Nomex was happy in general about it, but would still archive, or if that meant they would be satisfied (happy) that the cache did not need to be archived.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

To my knowledge, (you can skip if you don't want to read my opinion), sure, I'd think they are allowed, but will they? Unlikely, because it would seem to go against the very purpose of the disable - 1st hand verification from the CO that a cache is findable. It also puts the onus on the reviewer for assuming that a cache is findable, rather than on the cache's owner himself.

This is where I find the issue to be confounding. Not really in terms of guidelines, but more on a philosophical basis. I don't think there's an easy, global solution, so it's more of a thought experiment.

If the issue is that the cache is a mess, then yes - the CO needs to visit the cache, or organize a proxy, to attend to the physical cache.
If the issue is that cachers think it's missing, then "verification" by previous finders and/or subsequent finders might mean there's nothing for the CO to attend to at GZ - but the CO still needs to update the cache page. The example I linked to seems to be a pretty clear example of reliable "verification" that the cache is present and is not a throwdown.

In either case, when the CO is non-responsive and the cache is archived, then we end up with a piece of litter sitting out there. Yes, the cache might be listed on another site. Yes, the CO might come back and do the responsible thing by picking up the cache. But if the cache is still present, and especially in the latter case where the problem (missing) isn't actually a problem, then it's reasonable to question whether letting the cache remain listed is reasonable so cachers can continue to find it - especially in areas where cache density is very low, and it's unlikely another cache will be placed to take its spot.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

As the cache owner, you are responsible for the state of your cache and your listing. No one else.

Yes, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with this.

3.5k · February 9, 2019

56 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

No sympathy. Personally I would not mind if more D1 caches (that aren't D1) were archived after several DNFs.

My example was not meant to elicit sympathy.

Personally, I tried to nudge the CO to do something a couple times - once to update the difficulty, another to address the disablement. I tried to be constructive, since this was a first hide and was actually hidden well. I think it's better to try and guide CO's to learn the guidelines of hiding, rather than be harsh on their first attempt so they end up dropping out of the hobby. But I'm also not going to force a CO to do what I think they should, so if their cache ends up being archived because they didn't response, then so be it. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

4.2k · February 9, 2019

7 minutes ago, noncentric said:

My example was not meant to elicit sympathy.

Personally, I tried to nudge the CO to do something a couple times - once to update the difficulty, another to address the disablement. I tried to be constructive, since this was a first hide and was actually hidden well. I think it's better to try and guide CO's to learn the guidelines of hiding, rather than be harsh on their first attempt so they end up dropping out of the hobby. But I'm also not going to force a CO to do what I think they should, so if their cache ends up being archived because they didn't response, then so be it. I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I didn't think you were trying to get any sympathy :)

I understand advising a beginner; I have also done that, but I was thinking of caches placed by more experienced geocachers, although if a beginner's cache get lots of DNFs it should be obvious, even to a beginner, that perhaps the rating is too low. It's great if advice is helpful to a beginner and they take it. Some do and will say thank you for it, but then others will argue that they know more than the experienced cacher about the cache. Thinking in particular of one beginner with all of five finds. When most people couldn't find it and the beginner lost interest after a couple of months the cache was archived by a reviewer. I think some of how advice is received is linked to intelligence. Some people have lower ability to think of their cache from other people's point of view, ie. those who don't know where it is hidden. Other's when offered advice will instantly get what is being said and make corrections.

I am tired of hard to find geocaches rated D1, and if I have a DNF I am now also adding a NM, with something like, 'Could not find this cache and as it's only a D1 and should be obvious it must be missing. (Either that, or the rating is wrong.)'

9k · February 11, 2019

On 2/8/2019 at 8:18 PM, noncentric said:

If the issue is that cachers think it's missing, then "verification" by previous finders and/or subsequent finders might mean there's nothing for the CO to attend to at GZ - but the CO still needs to update the cache page. The example I linked to seems to be a pretty clear example of reliable "verification" that the cache is present and is not a throwdown.

In either case, when the CO is non-responsive and the cache is archived, then we end up with a piece of litter sitting out there. Yes, the cache might be listed on another site. Yes, the CO might come back and do the responsible thing by picking up the cache. But if the cache is still present, and especially in the latter case where the problem (missing) isn't actually a problem, then it's reasonable to question whether letting the cache remain listed is reasonable so cachers can continue to find it - especially in areas where cache density is very low, and it's unlikely another cache will be placed to take its spot.

In practice, yeah you're right. But, again, reviewers are only responsible for maintaining the listings on the website, not the physical stuff. If cache owners agree to a set of ownership guidelines in order to have the privilege of listing the cache on the website, then reviewer are obliged to responsible within reason whenever a cache owner doesn't hold up their end of the bargain. It's in order to maintain, to the best of their ability, the quality of active listings on the website. If a CO's cache listing gets archived, making any physical stuff that may remain out there effectively litter, then it's no one's fault but that cache owner. Otherwise it could even fall into legal issues with reviewers. The basis for any action by reviewers ultimately must be only related to agreed-upon guidelines in how the user uses the website; and for caches, in relation to listing ownership. Reviewers leaving up 'questionable' listings happens all the time, but if GS wants to improve cache quality, it certainly is an option for them to more often prod cache owners to be active, so if they're not active then listings in "bad" (implied) condition can get archived from the website quicker. (and obviously quicker is based on determining a reasonable period of time for response; which, again, if it's unreasonable can be taken to appeals, which of course requires an active cache owner already).

It's not an easy process to develop and maintain for a worldwide hobby, especially with regional differences and a forum where anyone anywhere can complain because their situation seems unfair compared to others'. But that's another reason reviewers have to focus on listing integrity, and never assume anything about physical property that isn't their own. (that was a whole discussion pertaining the process of adoption too) All they can do is ensure, to the best of the reviewers' abilities, that cache listings imply findable condition, and the listing owner is actively watching and maintaining.

2k · February 11, 2019

You go away for a week and nothing changes.

Per @Rikitan - "

Volunteering to ease the pressure from both sides, trying to:

Help players to have better experience of finding geocaches - instead of piling DNFs up, instead of droping pill bottles everywhere.

Since when did reviewers become involved in helping players have better experiences? I thought their job was to address individual caches, not ensure that players have better experiences. One of the side benefits can be that there are less "offending" caches out there but that's a by-product of their job, not the actual job. When did they become concerned about DNFs and throwdowns, as it pertains to cachers having a better experience? Why is that their concern? Aren't they supposed to be focusing on the cache itself, rather than the possibility that someone might have a bad experience because it's not there or that it's a throwdown? Even if the throwdown is a better container than the original cache that was there (not that I'm condoning throwdowns)? Reviewers used to deal with caches that had known issues, either with NM/NA logs and/or private communications with other cachers. Now they're being asked to deal with caches that may or may not have any issues, but appear to be on the verge. Why? So they can ensure that players have better experiences. Is that part of their job description now?

On 2/7/2019 at 9:18 PM, thebruce0 said:

And once again, it may be, the reviewer is not obligated to see things your way merely because you post a note.

And this is the crux of the issue for many. The note in the example provided was what almost all of us would have done in the past. It covered the main point all reviewers deem important, which is a plan for maintaining it, yet rather than work with the CO, they opt to ignore the very person responsible and take a more antagonistic approach. Why threaten archival? How does that create a more collaborative working relationship between the reviewers and the COs? I'm not debating your point; I'm merely pointing out that in the specific situation provided, to most of us involved, it appears the reviewer didn't even give the note any credence, though it was exactly the type of note, posted after a TD, that would have been appreciated and hoped for by a reviewer. Please tell me you acknowledge that the optics of this particular situation look bad as it pertains to the reviewer action.

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's not an easy process to develop and maintain for a worldwide hobby, especially with regional differences

Therein lies a big part of the problem. GS has provided a worldwide tool for reviewers to use, yet reviewers are using the same tool in a manner inconsistent with each other. I don't necessarily see that as either good or bad, but it certainly creates issues. If GS really thinks this is a great tool and will help create better experiences for cachers, then there ought to be some sort of push for consistency across the board as well, as it pertains to its use among reviewers. You can't just say this is for all caches and will result in better experiences for all cachers, and then allow the reviewers a wide ranging latitude with regard to its use. "We've got this awesome new tool that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences, but our reviewers are free to determine the validity of the output of the program before deciding on whether or not to take action." If it's really that great of a tool and does what it's supposed to do, then why isn't it applied and used consistently without reviewer judgment as to its validity?

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If cache owners agree to a set of ownership guidelines in order to have the privilege of listing the cache on the website,

I realize this is off-topic but.....I don't agree with the use of the word privilege in this sense. EVERYONE who is a member of this website has the ability to list a cache on the website. Privilege implies a special ability above and beyond the normal scope of things. GS relies on COs willing to spend their own money in order to create listings on their site and then hope that those same COs, who are the lifeblood of the company, are willing to live up to the minimum expectations set forth in the guidelines. It seems to me that GS is de-valuing, to some extent, the contributions of the very people that make their business model possible. Lest we forget, our activity started when Dave Ulmer hid a cache for others to find. This website then gathered many of those first caches and created the site we all use now. Rather than concede that COs might not fulfill all their "obligations" in a timely manner (and subsequently remove the offending caches from the database via the "older" method) and therefore create less than ideal situations for a possible future source of revenue, GS has chosen to create something that appears to increase the speed at which COs are required to act or run the risk of losing the very thing that the company depends on, a geocache, and place some additional "work" in our lap. We've long been asked to repair and replace our caches with known issues and we've now been asked to do that as well as repair and replace our caches that might have issues (or might not).

9k · February 11, 2019

12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Please tell me you acknowledge that the optics of this particular situation look bad as it pertains to the reviewer action.

I stated since the beginning that I believe the reviewer could have been more lax in their judgment in this particular case.

Doesn't change anything I've said.

13 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

GS has provided a worldwide tool for reviewers to use, yet reviewers are using the same tool in a manner inconsistent with each other.

To an arbitrary degree allowed by Groundspeak yes because not every region is completely consistent with each other.

14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

rather than work with the CO, they opt to ignore the very person responsible and take a more antagonistic approach. Why threaten archival?

Because there was an outstanding NM flag and the CO did not clear it up. And for whatever reason, the reviewer chose not to give an exception to the CO. As explained, the reviewer is not obligated to extend the deadline merely because of Note posted if the flag is still active. And once again, I'm not saying I agree 100% with this reviewer's judgment in this particular circumstance. But I'm not fighting it, because it's entirely consistent with their enforcement guidelines (to my knowledge).

16 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

How does that create a more collaborative working relationship between the reviewers and the COs?

I didn't say it did.

17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not debating your point; I'm merely pointing out that in the specific situation provided, to most of us involved, it appears the reviewer didn't even give the note any credence, though it was exactly the type of note, posted after a TD, that would have been appreciated and hoped for by a reviewer.

Did I ever disagree?

18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

"We've got this awesome new tool that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences, but our reviewers are free to determine the validity of the output of the program before deciding on whether or not to take action." If it's really that great of a tool and does what it's supposed to do, then why isn't it applied and used consistently without reviewer judgment as to its validity?

It is. Reviewers still decide for their own region how to respond to what the tool highlights for them. That hasn't changed one iota, to my knowledge, unless reviewer rules and local practices have changed.

Also, per the bolded, um no. That absolute statement was never made in regards to the reviewer tool, and as a paraphrase it's entirely wrong. If you're going to quote, then quote accurately, and if you're going to paraphrase, then don't insert obviously incorrect assertions, in an attempt to smack them down in strawman arguments.

22 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If cache owners agree to a set of ownership guidelines in order to have the privilege of listing the cache on the website,

I realize this is off-topic but.....I don't agree with the use of the word privilege in this sense. EVERYONE who is a member of this website has the ability to list a cache on the website. Privilege implies a special ability above and beyond the normal scope of things.

If you agree to the terms of use. Yes. No one has a "right" to list caches on the website. The normal scope of things is no access - you have to sign up, and therefore agree to the terms of use. Therefore it is a privilege to be allowed to use, and post listings, on this website. If the website goes down, apart from paying members, we are not owed anything. The website is here, they allow us to use it insofar as free access. So it is a privilege. Break the agreement, and your agreed upon abilities can be revoked.

The privileges we get for signing up and agreeing to the terms need to outweigh any inconveniences or frustrations we have. They don't have a right to our money - we can walk away apart from our unbroken agreement (hey capitalism!), nor do we have a right to use their website outside of our unbroken agreement (hey again!). But if they want to thrive, the experience they provide for the money they request jsut needs to convince us to keep giving them money. That's as far as it goes. Obviously if they make it less desireable for people to pay, then revenue will decline. If the features they provide, whether for free or for a fee, aren't sufficient to retain attention and active use, then the user base will decline. All of it plays together to keep the business alive. You don't have a right to list your caches, and they don't have a right to claim any kind of ownership over your property. At least insofar as the agreed terms go.

I've never defended that Groundspeak always makes the best decisions.

Nor have I defended reviewers' decisions as always the best.

But we have systems in place to check these judgments - and GS employs them for the sake of community satisfaction. Which, as you're well aware, translates to greater use and greater revenue.

Is it a privilege to list our caches on here? Absolutely. Because they've created a technological foundation on which the listings sit, with an enormous existing community for visibility, plus numerous tools both for finding and creating. I don't have a right to that. I can choose not to use it, I can choose to use another website, I can choose to create another website. Or, I can choose to agree to their terms of use (or choose to pay for additional features) so that in the grand scheme we both benefit from my active use of their system. They don't have grant me access (I'm sure there's a clause in the terms that access can be revoked for any reason without explanation, even though there are explicit guidelines laid out by which we are to abide), and they could shut down sign-ups at any point and deny further new users.

All that said, IANAL.

6.8k · February 11, 2019

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Because there was an outstanding NM flag and the CO did not clear it up. And for whatever reason, the reviewer chose not to give an exception to the CO. As explained, the reviewer is not obligated to extend the deadline merely because of Note posted if the flag is still active. And once again, I'm not saying I agree 100% with this reviewer's judgment in this particular circumstance. But I'm not fighting it, because it's entirely consistent with their enforcement guidelines (to my knowledge).

That implies there's a deadline, but where is it documented and how is the CO supposed to know what it is?

The Help Centre page on handling NMs says:

Quote

If you don't remove the "Needs Maintenance" attribute it will affect the Health Score of your cache. Follow these steps to remove the "Needs Maintenance" attribute:

Temporarily disable your cache if maintenance will take some time.

Maintain your cache. Find out how!

Select Log geocache on your cache page.

Select Owner maintenance as the log type.

If you disabled your cache, enable it.

How long is "some time"? A few hours, a few days, a few weeks or a few months? In this case, the CO said in his note he was pretty sure no maintenance was needed (so he didn't disable it) but would check on it as soon as he can just to be sure (and to clear the Needs Maintenance flag when he'd done so). You think two weeks is an excessively long time for the CO to dilly-dally, while I think it's way too short for the reviewer to step in. Okay, fine, we disagree, but some clarity somewhere, either in the Guidelines / Help Centre or the regional wiki if it's a regional thing, or even in the CHS email options, would go a long way towards helping COs respond appropriately in such situations, thus reducing the workload for reviewers and annoyance for COs who think they've done the right thing but still get caught out by the reviewer who thinks they haven't. Rules that are known only to the enforcer and not the enforcee don't lead to a happy community.

Edited February 12, 2019 by barefootjeff

7.5k · February 11, 2019

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

If you agree to the terms of use. Yes. No one has a "right" to list caches on the website. The normal scope of things is no access - you have to sign up, and therefore agree to the terms of use. Therefore it is a privilege to be allowed to use, and post listings, on this website. If the website goes down, apart from paying members, we are not owed anything. The website is here, they allow us to use it insofar as free access. So it is a privilege. Break the agreement, and your agreed upon abilities can be revoked.

This ^^^

9k · February 12, 2019

14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

That implies there's a deadline, but where is it documented and how is the CO supposed to know what it is?

By trusting and working with your local regional reviewers, who will be happy to do so, because they want to see geocaches published and maintained well for people to find them.

2k · February 12, 2019

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Also, per the bolded, um no. That absolute statement was never made in regards to the reviewer tool, and as a paraphrase it's entirely wrong

"that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences"

Really?

7.3. Geocache Health Score

Geocaching is more fun when caches are available to find. To help improve the overall caching experience, Geocaching HQ created an algorithm to calculate a hidden Health Score for each geocache. A low Health Score provides an indication that the cache may need attention from the owner. Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches.

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If you agree to the terms of use. Yes. No one has a "right" to list caches on the website

I never said anyone who is a member has a "right" to list caches. I only stated they had the ability to do so, IF they were members. A privilege doesn't apply to all members of a group, per the definition - "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

Premium membership is a privilege.

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The normal scope of things is no access - you have to sign up, and therefore agree to the terms of use.

Which is exactly why I limited my scope and stated that this involves members, not everyone in the world. You went somewhere I never meant to go. "EVERYONE who is a member of this website has the ability to list a cache on the website." I will agree that it's a privilege to become a member (internet access is NOT worldwide) but once you become a member, it's not a privilege (or a right) to list caches; it's an ability that EVERY member has access to. If 100% of the membership has the ability to do something (hide a cache), it's not a privilege.

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Because they've created a technological foundation on which the listings sit, with an enormous existing community for visibility, plus numerous tools both for finding and creating.

These are benefits of membership, not privileges. GS didn't have to do all of the things they've done to make our member benefits worth the membership, but they realized they needed to in order to continue to stay at the forefront of this market. However, all of these things they've done still fall within the parameters of accessibility by all members. Every member (not every Joe Schmoe) has access to the site, belongs to the community, and the ability to use the tools to find and create caches. 100% of our membership has the ability to use the base services that GS provides. They don't limit those base services to a sub-section of membership. Some members lose that ability to access those benefits due to their actions that violate the terms of service we agree to. I'm pretty sure that GS could revoke that right at any time as well, but I'm not sure they would do so without cause. There are certain privileges granted within premium membership that are truly privileges because it strictly limits those tools and actions to premium members - premium caches, PQs, etc...

The benefits of our membership are certainly nice. As members, we're joined together by a common interest, and it allows us the opportunity to explore a variety of options available to use. GS attempts to address issues by rolling out initiatives that may or may not work for all membership. Some work and some don't. I'm more than happy to pay my premium membership because the benefits of doing so outweigh the cost, in my opinion.

16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If you agree to the terms of use. Yes. No one has a "right" to list caches on the website. The normal scope of things is no access - you have to sign up, and therefore agree to the terms of use. Therefore it is a privilege to be allowed to use, and post listings, on this website. If the website goes down, apart from paying members, we are not owed anything. The website is here, they allow us to use it insofar as free access. So it is a privilege. Break the agreement, and your agreed upon abilities can be revoked.

This ^^^

You really think they allow members to use the site due to an altruistic motive? They allow members to use it because it allows them to maintain their business model. They NEED our listings to sustain their business model. We don't need them; they need us. That's why they allow members to have free access. They allow members free access because it increases the odds that some of those free members will become paying members. They allow free access because their advertising partners pay them in order to reach a greater audience, not a restricted audience. They allow free access because it's in their best interest to do so. It's not a privilege to access their site, once we become members. They allow members free access to the website because it's a two party agreement and that the expectation of membership (assuming you adhere to the terms of use stipulated by GS) includes free use of the website to access the services provided. As mentioned, they absolutely have the right to revoke that access but without just cause (breaking of the terms of use agreement), what business would knowingly cut off access to a member in good standing? They'd be biting the hand that feeds them. They allow access to members because that's part of the good faith agreement they've made with their members.

9k · February 12, 2019

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Also, per the bolded, um no. That absolute statement was never made in regards to the reviewer tool, and as a paraphrase it's entirely wrong

"that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences"

Really?

7.3. Geocache Health Score

Geocaching is more fun when caches are available to find. To help improve the overall caching experience, Geocaching HQ created an algorithm to calculate a hidden Health Score for each geocache. A low Health Score provides an indication that the cache may need attention from the owner. Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches.

Yes.

"We've got this awesome new tool that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences"

!=

"Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches."

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If you agree to the terms of use. Yes. No one has a "right" to list caches on the website

I never said anyone who is a member has a "right" to list caches. I only stated they had the ability to do so, IF they were members. A privilege doesn't apply to all members of a group, per the definition - "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group."

Premium membership is a privilege.

No, having an account on the website is a privilege. No one is entitled to an account. You sign up, you agree, they agree to let you have an account. Premium membership is a paid privilege. You pay, you agree, they let you have a premium membership. They are "granted or available only to a particular person or group" - those who agree and abide by the terms.

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Which is exactly why I limited my scope and stated that this involves members, not everyone in the world. You went somewhere I never meant to go. "EVERYONE who is a member of this website has the ability to list a cache on the website." I will agree that it's a privilege to become a member (internet access is NOT worldwide) but once you become a member, it's not a privilege (or a right) to list caches; it's an ability that EVERY member has access to. If 100% of the membership has the ability to do something (hide a cache), it's not a privilege.

100% of membership doesn't fundamentally have the ability - only those who agree and keep the terms of membership and use. And access may be revoked any time.

Terms of use - "F: Suspension and Termination. We may suspend or terminate your access to our services, including your account, at any time for any reason without notice and without liability . As an example, we may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect you or someone using your account has violated the terms of this Agreement or any other terms, guidelines or policies associated with our services or are otherwise not being a good member of the geocaching community. Any suspension or termination of your account for these reasons applies to you personally; you may not access our services through any other account that you own or create or through accounts owned or created by others. We also reserve the right to terminate or suspend user accounts that are inactive for an extended period of time. You can stop using our services and terminate this Agreement at any time."

It is a privilege to be allowed to use this privately owned website for the hobby that we enjoy.

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You really think they allow members to use the site due to an altruistic motive?

Yes.

They enjoy the hobby. They want others to enjoy the hobby.

They are also a business that wants to be successful.

These two motives can coexist.

Edited February 12, 2019 by thebruce0

February 12, 2019

19 hours ago, coachstahly said:

You go away for a week and nothing changes.

Per @Rikitan - "

Volunteering to ease the pressure from both sides, trying to:

Help players to have better experience of finding geocaches - instead of piling DNFs up, instead of droping pill bottles everywhere.

Since when did reviewers become involved in helping players have better experiences? I thought their job was to address individual caches, not ensure that players have better experiences. One of the side benefits can be that there are less "offending" caches out there but that's a by-product of their job, not the actual job. When did they become concerned about DNFs and throwdowns, as it pertains to cachers having a better experience? Why is that their concern? Aren't they supposed to be focusing on the cache itself, rather than the possibility that someone might have a bad experience because it's not there or that it's a throwdown? Even if the throwdown is a better container than the original cache that was there (not that I'm condoning throwdowns)? Reviewers used to deal with caches that had known issues, either with NM/NA logs and/or private communications with other cachers. Now they're being asked to deal with caches that may or may not have any issues, but appear to be on the verge. Why? So they can ensure that players have better experiences. Is that part of their job description now?

Away for a day and I see you've already find the answers above.

2k · February 12, 2019

57 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

100% of membership doesn't fundamentally have the ability - only those who agree and keep the terms of membership and use. And access may be revoked any time.

If they don't agree to the terms (which means they plan on keeping to the agreement), the TOU states that a member shouldn't use their services. "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THESE TERMS, DO NOT USE OUR SERVICES." Technically, the ONLY way a person could have a membership is if they agree to the terms of service and plan to keep to those terms, even if they don't read all the terms at the time they sign up. That's the basic concept behind a good faith agreement. If that's the case, then they have the ability to list a cache. It's a good faith agreement that the service provider can revoke at any time but it pre-supposes that each party keeps to their end of the agreement by dealing honestly and fairly with each other. Once one of the parties acts in bad faith (breaks with the terms of service agreement), only then can that ability to list a cache (amongst other services) be revoked and voided. However, until such time as GS determines that access is revoked, EVERY member has the ability to list a cache.

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

"We've got this awesome new tool that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences"

!=

"Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches."

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

To help improve the overall caching experience, Geocaching HQ created an algorithm to calculate a hidden Health Score for each geocache.

I'm assuming the != is equivalent to not equal to. You must have missed the other bolded section. I see the tool (the CHS) and it was created to help improve the overall caching experience. How is that different than my paraphrase? There's a tool that will help improve (make better) the overall caching experience.

1 hour ago, Rikitan said:

Away for a day and I see you've already find the answers above.

Reviewers are supposed to be impartial "judges" of caches, not arbiters of providing "better" caching experiences for players. Their focus should be on the caches, not the ones finding (or not finding) the caches. Whether or not the player has a good experience shouldn't be the concern of a reviewer, which is what you claimed. By doing their job (which is not to help a player have a better experience but to determine the health of the cache), they can influence the possible outcome of a positive experience, but that shouldn't be their overarching objective. It should be to make sure that the cache falls within the guidelines as it currently stands. The determination of whether or not a cacher might have a good experience isn't something they should take into account when reviewing a cache.

If you're going to claim that they should help make experiences better, then you're opening the door for reviewers to make a claim about the subjective value of a cache - LPCs usually not a really good experience (they do have their place), a gadget cache being a good experience, a guardrail cache being a not so good experience, an ammo can in the woods involving a mile hike being a good experience, etc..... That's a Pandora's box I don't believe anyone wants to open and I hope that's not what you mean. Just because a cache is in good shape, maintenance-wise, doesn't mean that the experience they have will necessarily be a good one. A small bison tube in pristine shape, hanging in the middle of the woods might be a good experience for one cacher, but for someone like LOne.R, it's not going to be because it probably could have been a small or regular.

9k · February 12, 2019

Oh my word... I'm done arguing the semantics of "privilege". It's entirely beside the point.

On 2/12/2019 at 2:15 PM, coachstahly said:

On 2/12/2019 at 11:47 AM, thebruce0 said:

"We've got this awesome new tool that will improve cache quality and therefore provide for better caching experiences"

!=

"Our goal is to improve the overall geocaching experience and avoid frowny faces due to missing or broken caches."

On 2/12/2019 at 11:47 AM, thebruce0 said:

To help improve the overall caching experience, Geocaching HQ created an algorithm to calculate a hidden Health Score for each geocache.

I'm assuming the != is equivalent to not equal to. You must have missed the other bolded section. I see the tool (the CHS) and it was created to help improve the overall caching experience. How is that different than my paraphrase? There's a tool that will help improve (make better) the overall caching experience.

You must have missed the implication of your "paraphrase". No one has ever said "the tool WILL improve cache quality". The claim is that Groundspeak employs efforts towards the goal of improving the overall geocaching experience - one of those efforts it the tool. There is no guarantee. It would be foolish to guarantee. The CHS functionality was implemented with one benefit being to help reviewers so their job. It does. Reviewers like it. End of story.

On 2/12/2019 at 2:15 PM, coachstahly said:

Reviewers are supposed to be impartial "judges" of caches, not arbiters of providing "better" caching experiences for players. Their focus should be on the caches, not the ones finding (or not finding) the caches.

What reviewer are judging cache finders?! Groundspeak is obviously allowing reviewers to take action more proactively in the effort to pick up slack where community action may be lacking. It's not a whim decision, it's one they've obviously weighed and found more valuable to proceed with than not (otherwise why would they choose to knowingly do something harmful to their business?) The CHS tool allows them to do this. That does not mean the community has any reason to do less than we always have. The tool makes their job easier. That means they can do more which they couldn't before; whether it's in quantity of issues addressed, or choosing to act on what they believe to be potential problems in the making to ensure the cache owner is on top of it and the cache exudes a positive finding experience. Yes, they are arbiters of cache owner activity - helping to ensure that owners uphold their end of the responsibility they agreed to - to be responsive and have reasonable maintenance plans for the caches they are allowed to publish on gc.com.

Edited February 14, 2019 by thebruce0
grammar fix

7.5k · February 12, 2019

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Reviewers are supposed to be impartial "judges" of caches, not arbiters of providing "better" caching experiences for players.

By extension, the results of what reviewers do can provide better experiences for the majority of players. Especially when defunct caches are removed from the database.

February 13, 2019

14 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Reviewers are supposed to be impartial "judges" of caches, not arbiters of providing "better" caching experiences for players. Their focus should be on the caches, not the ones finding (or not finding) the caches. Whether or not the player has a good experience shouldn't be the concern of a reviewer, which is what you claimed. By doing their job (which is not to help a player have a better experience but to determine the health of the cache), they can influence the possible outcome of a positive experience, but that shouldn't be their overarching objective. It should be to make sure that the cache falls within the guidelines as it currently stands. The determination of whether or not a cacher might have a good experience isn't something they should take into account when reviewing a cache.

If you're going to claim that they should help make experiences better, then you're opening the door for reviewers to make a claim about the subjective value of a cache - LPCs usually not a really good experience (they do have their place), a gadget cache being a good experience, a guardrail cache being a not so good experience, an ammo can in the woods involving a mile hike being a good experience, etc..... That's a Pandora's box I don't believe anyone wants to open and I hope that's not what you mean. Just because a cache is in good shape, maintenance-wise, doesn't mean that the experience they have will necessarily be a good one. A small bison tube in pristine shape, hanging in the middle of the woods might be a good experience for one cacher, but for someone like LOne.R, it's not going to be because it probably could have been a small or regular.

Absolutely, I agree, very well presented.

I'm not claiming the opposite Maybe it sounds like that when someone pick one sentence and quote it without all the context before & after.

Focus on cache & its health, that's it.

2k · February 13, 2019

16 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

By extension, the results of what reviewers do can provide better experiences for the majority of players.

I don't disagree with this point, as I've said it twice, that it's a by-product of focusing on the caches, which should be the reviewer's main job, not helping players have a better experience. They should have nothing to do with the finders; only with the cache.

2k · February 13, 2019

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

What reviewer are judging cache finders?!

This was in response to Rikitan's claim that part of the reviewers' job is to "...Help players to have better experience of finding geocaches - instead of piling DNFs up, instead of droping pill bottles everywhere." They shouldn't have anything to do with the finders/players and whether or not their experience is a good one or a bad one. It's to determine that the cache meets the guidelines as they currently stand. The by-product of focusing on caches is that finders/players may have a better experience, but that's not the overriding reason they should be reviewing caches.

9k · February 13, 2019

Agreed

Ignored Needs Maintenance logs

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

7.4. Maintenance expectations

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment