Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
edexter

Ignored Needs Maintenance logs

Recommended Posts

On 12/11/2018 at 1:50 PM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe you should log a NM until you have actually seen this yourself, and flag a cache before you do.

 

I don't  believe that you should tell me what to do.  You do what you think is right and I'll do what I think is right.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Five of those remaining caches in the map on the right have outstanding NMs. One dates back eight years and was a heads-up to the CO about roadworks in the area that might have destroyed the cache but in the end didn't; one is for a missing cache that the CO disabled, replaced and re-enabled but didn't add an OM as well to clear the flag; one dates back a couple of years reporting a full log (which presumably was replaced by a subsequent finder); one was for a wet log back in 2010 (seems to have been resolved as the cache was good when I found it in 2013 and later dropped a TB there in 2016); and the fifth is wet log problem dating from mid 2017 which seems to come and go depending on how much rain we have. Four of those caches have inactive owners long gone from the game yet all of them are still being regularly found and enjoyed.

 

In the whole of the New South Wales Central Coast region, there have only been five new caches since the beginning of August (one of them mine), so people aren't stepping in to fill the void. The last thing we need is forced archival of caches that are still in reasonable condition but just don't have an active owner to log that all-important OM.

 

Sounds like they haven't been force archived (well, they haven't), likely because the reviewer can see their current good state and is giving the CO the benefit of the doubt. So, the problem is what, then?

 

If it comes to a point that the reviewer judges it should be archived because of lack of a CO OM log, then... well if the community is so 'inactive' that no one is stepping up to place a new one, then it's unlikely that the cache will be found that often anyway, so if they're as good as they sound they are, then I'd think someone would step in and publish a replacement, if not you. *shrug*   Are those caches still quite often being found? Is there that much of a discrepancy between finder activity and ownership activity that an abandoned good condition cache will do significant harm to the local community? If the local community is so active, then they're probably already found by everyone local; the only loss would really be that each is one less cache to find on the map for new people coming to the game in the area. But if the community is not that active, then that's probably fairly rare. The way to change that would be to encourage more existing cachers to become owners. And if no one wants to, it really sounds more like a concern with the local community than with the concern of forced archival of abandoned good-condition caches. As unfortunate as it may be for such a community... Sorry if it's in that state =/

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Touchstone wrote: "I’m not a GSAK user, but I was wondering if there’s a GSAK macro out there that mimics the CHS?"  

I'm not aware of one, but I use GSAK all the time and it can easily spot caches that have issues.  Once you specify an area and download the caches available it gives you a colorcoded "last four logs" view of the cache (for instance:  all green means 4 consecutive finds, all red means 4 consecutive dnfs).  You can easily sort by "last find" so when you see a cache hasn't been found in many months and is all red, it's clear something is up and you can easily ignore or investigate what the logs say.

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

The last thing we need is forced archival of caches that are still in reasonable condition but just don't have an active owner to log that all-important OM.

 

     I tend to agree with this sentiment but the "abandoned cache" issue is something that needs to be addressed by the community and "the system", as it is only going to get worse.  For instance, in my area a cacher with over 650 hides has recently "dropped out".  He continues to cache on occasion but doesn't do any maintenance.  Now removing his caches would certainly change "the map" but since the great majority of them are P&Gs it wouldn't matter to me at all.   Here I feel "the system" is at fault for "allowing" the caches to begin with (seriously, who is going to maintain 650 caches...).  No one else is likely to offer to adopt the caches, so they all will eventually go.  However in this case, "the system" seems to have accepted respnsibility, in a way, and instead of the dragged out 6 month process of repeated dnfs, a reluctant NM, an even more reluctant NA, a reviewer "disable" and finally a Archival... What happens now is after a couple of dnfs, the reviewer disables the cache and then archives it shortly after when the CO once again does nothing.  Clearly "the system" has noticed and flagged this CO.  Now that's an extreme case (many caches, one owner) but from a "system" point of view "many caches, many owners" is the same problem:  Lots of abandoned caches.  The "system" view is that a CO is responsible to place, maintain and remove caches unless the cache is adopted and the adoption process requires that someone who has abandoned the cache "give it" to someone else.  I don't know your experience, but emailing a CO who I don't know and offering to adopt their cache hasn't worked so far (0-7 to date).  It works better if I know the CO (2-0).  What has worked, and I suspect works in your area, is that "the community" maintains the cache (replacing the wet logs) which works ok until the container cracks or goes missing or someone "from away" logs an NM.  Because of the "legal structure" of the game, it's clear that the cache belongs to the CO and only to the CO so "the system" is not going to "give you the cache" even if you are willing to maintain it.  The workaround in this case is for "the community to adopt the cache", unofficially of course...The way we have done it in my area is that somebody decides they are going to "keep the cache going", says so in a note on the cache page and then does the maintenance and responds to questions about it.  You can't log an OM but you can make it clear to the community and "the system" that you'll be responsible for fixing things.  You put the cache on your watch list and deal with any problems.  In order for this to work, you have to be willing to reach out and negotiate with people (you can't post an OM log, but you can contact someone who posted an NM, tell them you'll fix it and ask them to change it to a "note").  Again, this typically only works for a "quality" cache that you have some reason for maintaining as most folks aren't looking to take on more maintenance, but for old timie caches that are "worth saving" it's a solution for some.  

   For the great majority of abandoned caches, it think they they should go.  Nothing is more frustrating that searching for something that isn't there.  A cracked pill bottle full of mush is no prize either.  Replacing the wet logs can slow down the process but it's inevitable.    "The system" seems designed to promote more caches, rather than better caches and pretty much anyone with a cell phone, a bison tube and a sidewalk can place as many as they want.  Actually requiring periodic maintenance and archiving those not in compliance isn't in the cards (though it would solve the ignored needs maintenance issue) and even if it were, would not address your concern about the numbers decline.  Personally, I think the most likely way for caching to grow is to pursue quality not quantity.  Place what you like to find in an area you want to return to as sooner or later you'll be headed back there to repair it.  Especially if you place mults, you know it's just a matter of time...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, edexter said:

(you can't post an OM log, but you can contact someone who posted an NM, tell them you'll fix it and ask them to change it to a "note")

 

An interesting strategy, but AFAIK once you post the NM, the attribute is set. You can change it to a note but only the OM will remove the attribute. Unless I'm wrong on that, but I don't think I am...

 

No solution Groundspeak could employ could possibly directly "fix" bad quality caches. The only generic ways to improve 'general geocaching quality/experience' is by either promoting good quality (again, doesn't directly reduce bad quality) or actively removing known bad quality (but the damage has already been done; bad quality hasn't been prevented, just quickly cleared out).   I think it's pretty clear that there's no way to prevent bad quality/experiences, so any strategy will only be taking a quicker stance to either drown them out, or clear them out quickly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, edexter said:

Touchstone wrote: "I’m not a GSAK user, but I was wondering if there’s a GSAK macro out there that mimics the CHS?"  

I'm not aware of one, but I use GSAK all the time and it can easily spot caches that have issues. 

The "Cache Cop" macro for GSAK is part of the heritage for the Cache Health Score.  Source: I personally demonstrated it to the team that originally developed the Cache Health Score.  CHS is that macro on Steroids.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NanCycle said:

 

I don't  believe that you should tell me what to do.  You do what you think is right and I'll do what I think is right.

Good grief. Where do you get that I am telling you what do do! I was answering someone else, not you, to say that is what I do.

 

Conversation you could have read if you had bothered (previous page): "I am only saying what I do. You do what you like." And I was 'urged on' to have this conversation, which you would also have realised if you had read.

Fine do what you like; I have NEVER suggested otherwise. And I don't know you to tell you what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Good grief. Where do you get that I am telling you what do do! I was answering someone else, not you, to say that is what I do.

 

Conversation you could have read if you had bothered (previous page): "I am only saying what I do. You do what you like." And I was 'urged on' to have this conversation, which you would also have realised if you had read.

Fine do what you like; I have NEVER suggested otherwise. And I don't know you to tell you what to do.

Sorry,  when you said,  "I don't believe you should log a NM unless you have actually seen this yourself" I didn't realize that you only meant that to apply to one specific person, maybe one specific situation.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If it comes to a point that the reviewer judges it should be archived because of lack of a CO OM log, then... well if the community is so 'inactive' that no one is stepping up to place a new one, then it's unlikely that the cache will be found that often anyway, so if they're as good as they sound they are, then I'd think someone would step in and publish a replacement, if not you. *shrug*   Are those caches still quite often being found? Is there that much of a discrepancy between finder activity and ownership activity that an abandoned good condition cache will do significant harm to the local community? If the local community is so active, then they're probably already found by everyone local; the only loss would really be that each is one less cache to find on the map for new people coming to the game in the area. But if the community is not that active, then that's probably fairly rare. The way to change that would be to encourage more existing cachers to become owners. And if no one wants to, it really sounds more like a concern with the local community than with the concern of forced archival of abandoned good-condition caches. As unfortunate as it may be for such a community... Sorry if it's in that state =/

 

Perhaps it helps to understand the nature of this area. Geologically it's a drowned river system, flooded by the rising ocean at the end of the last ice age. As a result, the topology is a contrast of almost dead-flat urban land where silt has built up to fill some of those flooded valleys and raise them just above sea level, surrounded by rugged steep-sided ridges of the original sandstone plateau. This gives rise to two distinct types of cache - the urban ones, mostly T1-T2 P&Gs, and the bushland ones which are nearly all T2.5+. The urban ones tend to be more short-lived as there are lots of muggles prowling about searching for caches to nab, whereas the bushland ones mostly have larger rugged containers, often hidden inside rock cavities where they're protected from both muggles and the weather, so they can be very long-lasting. Most of the surviving ones from the long-gone COs are those bushland ones, still going strong after many years.

 

Being a beachside community just the other side of the Hawkesbury River from Sydney, the area gets a fair number of visitors, particularly during the school holidays, and there are often cachers amongst those. But those visitors usually have young kids so they tend to just do the urban caches, with the bushland ones only getting finds from the handful of still-active locals and maybe an occasional visit by a more hardy cacher from outside the area. As an example of this, of those five new caches that have been published on the Central Coast since the beginning of August, one is a bushland one (my one, a D1.5/T3 traditional involving a 3km hike out along a mostly level dirt road) with a total of three finds, two of which are members of the same family who went out there together and the other finder who came up from Sydney a few days after publication to grab FTF. Three of the others are P&Gs in the coastal town of Terrigal, the two earlier ones (published in October) having 11 finds each and the more recent (November) one having 4 finds. The final cache in that five is another P&G in one of the more inland towns, also published in October and with 7 finds to date. Over the summer school holidays starting next week, it's likely those four P&Gs will get a fair number of visitor finds, but I'd be surprised if my bushland one got any. It's a far cry from the heady days of 2015 when I can remember queuing up to sign the log amongst the dozen or so cachers who'd appear within an hour or two of a new cache being published.

 

11 hours ago, edexter said:

For the great majority of abandoned caches, it think they they should go.  Nothing is more frustrating that searching for something that isn't there.  A cracked pill bottle full of mush is no prize either.  Replacing the wet logs can slow down the process but it's inevitable.    "The system" seems designed to promote more caches, rather than better caches and pretty much anyone with a cell phone, a bison tube and a sidewalk can place as many as they want.  Actually requiring periodic maintenance and archiving those not in compliance isn't in the cards (though it would solve the ignored needs maintenance issue) and even if it were, would not address your concern about the numbers decline.  Personally, I think the most likely way for caching to grow is to pursue quality not quantity.  Place what you like to find in an area you want to return to as sooner or later you'll be headed back there to repair it.  Especially if you place mults, you know it's just a matter of time... 

 

To help put it into perspective, here are some numbers. Of the 57 caches currently in my local area (the right-hand map in my previous post), only 11 are micros and only 16 are accessible to basic members using the official app (D/T both 2 or less, non-PMO traditionals). They make up the bulk of the P&Gs. The rest are the bushland ones, most of which (apart from mine) now have inactive COs but are still in good nick, and they're not pill bottles either. Here's a fairly recent photo of one of my bushland caches which I hid a bit over three years ago and haven't touched since. The only thing that's changed since the day I put it there are the names the 21 finders have written in the logbook.

 

20180406_093142.jpg.a6e97d4badd5bfe5be0e2c7e6fc50a71.jpg

 

Even my oldest active hide, GC4X42A, hidden in January 2014, hasn't needed any maintenance apart from a couple of times when it had drifted slightly away from its intended hiding place. After 266 finds It's still the original container with the original logbook and even the original pencil. I've also found quite a number of decade or more old bushland caches still with the original container and logbook and still in excellent condition without any apparent owner TLC. A good solid container in an isolated hiding spot protected from the weather and any stray muggles, and with a good-sized logbook that'll never fill with the rate of finds it gets, can last pretty much indefinitely.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, dprovan said:

The CHS predicts the health of the cache based on a guess about what various logs might mean. It does not track the cache's health. That's why I call it a different class of failure: CHS says there's a possibility of a failure of unknown type, while an NM flags a specific failure based on a reasoned analysis.

 

Which is why it astounds me that the NM log doesn't automatically trigger the CHS email.  A construct that is designed to predict the health of a cache won't send out an email to a cache that has a NM log on file that states an actual issue regarding the poor health of the cache.  Again, I specifically refer to the default NM log that states the container is damaged.  It seems to me that the predictor should absolutely be initiated to send out an email on a NM log that states the cache is damaged.  I know I keep reiterating this point, but I can't be the only one who sees this discrepancy and wonders why it is the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Which is why it astounds me that the NM log doesn't automatically trigger the CHS email

 

It's unneccessary to double up. The CO already gets alerted via the NM log. Those COs who are active and responsive will respond when they get the NM, most will respond when issues are noted in Found logs. For active owners, an additional alert isn't required.

 

When a cache deteriorates to a point that it needs a CHS prod, it's more likely going to irritate the active CO who hasn't done anything about their declining cache, and doesn't plan on doing anything. I'd like to see the CHS email feature removed. I doubt the email has much,  if any positive effect on owners. 

 

The CHS is a reviewer tool. As a reviewer tool, it appears to be a nice addition for reviewers. The reviewers in the forums seem to find value in it. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

Which is why it astounds me that the NM log doesn't automatically trigger the CHS email.

 

What benefit would you get from two emails for the same problem?  If anything, they might have a negative effect.

 

That said, we’ve been told that an NM log lowers the CHS score but, on its own, not by enough to drop it below the threshold.  But assuming we have a cache that is already hovering just above that threshold, then surely an NM log would tip it over.  In that case, does the CO get both emails, or is the functionality clever enough to delay the CHS warning?

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, edexter said:

Touchstone wrote: "I’m not a GSAK user, but I was wondering if there’s a GSAK macro out there that mimics the CHS?"  

I'm not aware of one, but I use GSAK all the time and it can easily spot caches that have issues.  Once you specify an area and download the caches available it gives you a colorcoded "last four logs" view of the cache (for instance:  all green means 4 consecutive finds, all red means 4 consecutive dnfs).  You can easily sort by "last find" so when you see a cache hasn't been found in many months and is all red, it's clear something is up and you can easily ignore or investigate what the logs say.

 

Just wondering how caches that are meant to be difficult to find fit into this scheme. Like GC13C3B for example, a D3 traditional which often has four or more DNFs in a row before someone again finds it.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Just wondering how caches that are meant to be difficult to find fit into this scheme. Like GC13C3B for example, a D3 traditional which often has four or more DNFs in a row before someone again finds it.



I wonder how many CHS emails a cache like GC4MZ8P would get. Just because a cache is difficult doesn't mean it needs maintenance. That being said the CO was performing regular maintenance (replacing a wet log etc). 

I bring this cache up specifically because it relates directly to the conversation being had on whether or not to log a "NM" or a "NA" without visiting the cache location. As to whether or not that's appropriate I leave that open to discussion.


Whether or not a cache should be designed not to be found however is a subject for a different thread....
image.png.69b84b8756777f03a9323e59250f32f4.png

Edited by STNolan
Update Links

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/11/2018 at 2:39 AM, arisoft said:

I generally do not overanalyze the situation. I have seen players who do not post DNF until they are sure that the cache is missing etc. If the cache needs any maintenance, I post the NM and if I can not find the cache I post the DNF. Some COs monitor only NM logs. By using inappropriate log type you may miss your goal to remind the CO.

I probably should've added in my earlier post that my "Write Note" logs I was referring to are on caches that I haven't yet attempted.  It's usually on a cache that I see while scanning an area that I'm planning to visit, and so I'm hoping to 'nudge' the CO to fixing the cache sooner than later - so that it's fixed by the time I get there. Just looked and I have posted such 'reminder' WN logs on caches that the CO has Temp Disabled and they say they are "going to fix it". I don't post 'reminder' Note logs on a cache after I've actually attempted it.

 

On 12/11/2018 at 9:40 AM, dprovan said:

An NA reminds the CO just fine. Again, it is irrelevant to me whether the CO forgot or has consciously decided not to do anything. If he forgot, he can still act after the NA. If he's decided not to do the maintenance, I don't want any more delays about getting the failed cache off the books.

Good for you.  You log your way, and I'll log my way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, STNolan said:



I wonder how many CHS emails a cache like GC4MZ8P would get. Just because a cache is difficult doesn't mean it needs maintenance. That being said the CO was performing regular maintenance (replacing a wet log etc). 

I bring this cache up specifically because it relates directly to the conversation being had on whether or not to log a "NM" or a "NA" without visiting the cache location. As to whether or not that's appropriate I leave that open to discussion.


Whether or not a cache should be designed not to be found however is a subject for a different thread....
image.png.69b84b8756777f03a9323e59250f32f4.png

 

And the CO had logged an OM, reporting that the cache was in place, just 1 week before the NA was logged.

The CO noted that they received the CHS email twice this year, presumably due to all the DNF's on the D5 cache.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/12/2018 at 5:57 AM, coachstahly said:

Sticking on topic with the NM log, it appears the NM default, cache might be missing, is gone.  Logbook is full, container is damaged, cache should be archived, and other are the 4 default logs now available to choose from.  I'm not sure why the archive default is under the NM umbrella, unless it actually posts as a NA log.  I'm not going to test it out on someone else's cache but wonder if anyone has selected that option to know if that's what happens.

 

The canned options are based on the log type.

  • If the selected log type is DNF, then the options are "Cache might be missing", "Cache should be archived", and "Other".  -- After all, how would a cacher know that a logbook is full or the container is damaged if they didn't find the cache.
  • If the selected log type is Found It, then the options are "Logbook is full", "Container is damaged", "Cache should be archived", and "Other".  -- After all, why would a cacher says the cache might be missing if they 'Found It'.
  • If the selected log type is Write Note, then all options are available.
  • If the cacher selects the "Cache should be archived" option, then an NA log is posted to the cache page.  With the other options, an NM log is posted to the cache page.
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, STNolan said:

I wonder how many CHS emails a cache like GC4MZ8P would get.

 

A lot, and most probably deserved. The cache seems to have been dug in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, noncentric said:
On 12/11/2018 at 9:40 AM, dprovan said:

An NA reminds the CO just fine. Again, it is irrelevant to me whether the CO forgot or has consciously decided not to do anything. If he forgot, he can still act after the NA. If he's decided not to do the maintenance, I don't want any more delays about getting the failed cache off the books.

Good for you.  You log your way, and I'll log my way.

I agree you can log however you want, I just want to point out that it might take an extra couple of months for a missing cache to be archived, just in case you worry about people that complain about missing caches being on the books for too long. I don't mind that you aren't worried about that, but I do want you to be aware of it.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, BillyGee said:

A lot, and most probably deserved. The cache seems to have been dug in.

 

I have a cache which seems to be dug in but in reality it is only covered with a plastic cap which is camouflaged to ground level. Players do not hesitate to log DNF logs so I do not get CHS mails but sometimes they argue that the cache is dug in.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, noncentric said:

 

The canned options are based on the log type.

  • If the selected log type is DNF, then the options are "Cache might be missing", "Cache should be archived", and "Other".  -- After all, how would a cacher know that a logbook is full or the container is damaged if they didn't find the cache.
  • If the selected log type is Found It, then the options are "Logbook is full", "Container is damaged", "Cache should be archived", and "Other".  -- After all, why would a cacher says the cache might be missing if they 'Found It'.
  • If the selected log type is Write Note, then all options are available.
  • If the cacher selects the "Cache should be archived" option, then an NA log is posted to the cache page.  With the other options, an NM log is posted to the cache page.

 

I didn't even think to go to the DNF log and see what the issues might be for that.  Thanks.  Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

What benefit would you get from two emails for the same problem?  If anything, they might have a negative effect.

 

I would think two emails would provide a much stronger indication that the CO would need to go check on the cache and fix whatever might be ailing it.  

 

Perhaps it might draw reviewer attention sooner ( 2 weeks instead of the typical 30 days I see?), which truly is the only negative as it pertains to the CO.  However, the CO would still be able to address the issue in a reasonable amount of time so I don't see how it's truly negative.  It appears there's an issue with the ignored NM logs (per this thread) so why would a second email, this time from the CHS, be any more of an annoyance or problem for the CO in question.  In fact, it could even expedite the cleaning up of caches with absentee owners if it draws reviewer attention sooner due to double listing.  It needs maintenance AND it's in bad health?

 

No one has sufficiently explained to me why a log type that indicates that actual maintenance is needed doesn't automatically trigger the CHS to send out an email that states that there might be a need for maintenance.  I get the redundancy issues - it absolutely is a redundant.  I also understand that some NM logs are "less" damaging to the CHS than the one that states "container is damaged" but that doesn't change the fact that some sort of maintenance is required of the CO.  I also get that it's not going to get those COs to move any faster to fix the issue with the cache.  However, all those people who don't have issues with the CHS and the algorithm used for scoring state that it's better to have a few false positives than it is to adjust the CHS and have it NOT catch more of the caches it's intended to catch.  This seems to fit the same type of thing.

 

A damaged container certainly needs maintenance but apparently it's not enough to trigger the email that says a cache might need maintenance, despite firsthand evidence to the contrary.  In the larger scheme of things, it's not really important, even though I'm still talking about it.  For me, it's an annoyance in the way things are structured that flies in the face of reason.

Share this post


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

It's unneccessary to double up. The CO already gets alerted via the NM log. Those COs who are active and responsive will respond when they get the NM, most will respond when issues are noted in Found logs. For active owners, an additional alert isn't required.

 

When a cache deteriorates to a point that it needs a CHS prod, it's more likely going to irritate the active CO who hasn't done anything about their declining cache, and doesn't plan on doing anything. I'd like to see the CHS email feature removed. I doubt the email has much,  if any positive effect on owners. 

 

The CHS is a reviewer tool. As a reviewer tool, it appears to be a nice addition for reviewers. The reviewers in the forums seem to find value in it. 

 

I know it's unnecessary to double up but it won't change what either type of CO will do.  For active COs, the additional alert wouldn't change their approach to maintenance in any way, shape or form.  Why would a second notification be any different?  You and I hear it all the time.  "The CHS email isn't really a big deal.  It requires minimal effort of a CO to stave off possible reviewer action."  They're right so why not send the second notification.  It doesn't change the fact that responsible COs will still take care of any issues.  Yes, it would be annoying and redundant but it still wouldn't stop me from fixing my cache if I got one or two notifications.

 

With regard to inactive or non-maintaining COs, if they're going to ignore the CHS email, they're going to ignore the NM log as well and vice versa.  Sending two forms of notification isn't going to change their approach either.  They're going to ignore both so sending both doesn't really matter to them.

 

Like you, I personally would like it if the CHS automated email is removed from the site.  As you state, reviewers seem to like it as a tool to help locate caches that might need some additional help.  While I'm still not sold on how it does what it does, if the badly worded email is removed from the situation and it's for reviewers only, I'd be less inclined to find fault with it because at least then, a person is reviewing the case against the cache and applying some human reasoning to the status instead of an automated program that can't take into account the reasons for why DNF logs and NM logs have been filed.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, STNolan said:

I wonder how many CHS emails a cache like GC4MZ8P would get. Just because a cache is difficult doesn't mean it needs maintenance.

 

Adding another cache with a similar situation.  The NA log was filed by a new cacher, incorrectly.  The 2 NM logs were filed on site - one by a finder who found it lying out in the open (NO idea how that could have happened) and the other who was there and posted about the wasps/hornets.

 

https://coord.info/GCQR7W

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Adding another cache with a similar situation.  The NA log was filed by a new cacher, incorrectly.  The 2 NM logs were filed on site - one by a finder who found it lying out in the open (NO idea how that could have happened) and the other who was there and posted about the wasps/hornets.

 

https://coord.info/GCQR7W

This famous cache has only received one Cache Health Score email alert.  The CO's Owner Maintenance log on November 4th took the cache off the "possibly naughty list," where it had sat for quite some time.  It's at that point where the benefits of a reviewer's human eyes* come into play.  Without a doubt, the Indiana reviewer knows about the difficulty of the cache, the likelihood of many DNF's, and the likelihood of a "false positive" notification email, even after the CHS takes the difficulty of the cache into account.  So, as shown by the cache page, no reviewer action was taken - which seems to be the correct answer.

 

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Keystone said:

This famous cache has only received one Cache Health Score email alert.  The CO's Owner Maintenance log on November 4th took the cache off the "possibly naughty list," where it had sat for quite some time.  It's at that point where the benefits of a reviewer's human eyes* come into play.  Without a doubt, the Indiana reviewer knows about the difficulty of the cache, the likelihood of many DNF's, and the likelihood of a "false positive" notification email, even after the CHS takes the difficulty of the cache into account.  So, as shown by the cache page, no reviewer action was taken - which seems to be the correct answer.

 

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

 

Good to know it's only been singled out once.  HoosierReviewer hasn't found the cache but he certainly knows about it!  

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I know it's unnecessary to double up but it won't change what either type of CO will do.  For active COs, the additional alert wouldn't change their approach to maintenance in any way, shape or form.  Why would a second notification be any different?  You and I hear it all the time.  "The CHS email isn't really a big deal.  It requires minimal effort of a CO to stave off possible reviewer action."  They're right so why not send the second notification.  It doesn't change the fact that responsible COs will still take care of any issues.  Yes, it would be annoying and redundant but it still wouldn't stop me from fixing my cache if I got one or two notifications.

 

With regard to inactive or non-maintaining COs, if they're going to ignore the CHS email, they're going to ignore the NM log as well and vice versa.  Sending two forms of notification isn't going to change their approach either.  They're going to ignore both so sending both doesn't really matter to them.

 

What could be more useful is if the CHS email was sent, say, a month or two after the NM was posted if there hasn't been an OM to clear it or a TD to take the cache off line while repairs are made. That way it serves as a reminder to the CO who either missed seeing the NM email or their planned repair got swept aside by other matters and was forgotten, but the CO who does the right thing and acts on the NM doesn't get any doubling up or attract any needless reviewer attention.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

I thought of this thread today when I got a notification email saying a cache log was wet (checking previous logs, it seems this is issue has been mentioned many times, with numerous mentions that it's so wet it couldn't be signed, and in between those logs someone placing a new log sheet. But a wet log is a very frequent comment on this cache.

The CO was not happy that a NM was posted, and immediately logged an OM:

 

"Cap isn't necessary, and like most cache log sheets gets wet, log dries, gets wet, log dries... Sign if you want to/can, or drop a new slip of paper in there."

 

Obviously OM was not really done, and they have no intention of performing it. They are depending on others to replace log sheets.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

Obviously OM was not really done, and they have no intention of performing it. They are depending on others to replace log sheets.

 

Yeah...  What sorta bugs me most about this instance  is the "CO" assuming everyone else has the same issues ("and like most...")...  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I thought of this thread today when I got a notification email saying a cache log was wet (checking previous logs, it seems this is issue has been mentioned many times, with numerous mentions that it's so wet it couldn't be signed, and in between those logs someone placing a new log sheet. But a wet log is a very frequent comment on this cache.

The CO was not happy that a NM was posted, and immediately logged an OM:

 

"Cap isn't necessary, and like most cache log sheets gets wet, log dries, gets wet, log dries... Sign if you want to/can, or drop a new slip of paper in there."

 

Obviously OM was not really done, and they have no intention of performing it. They are depending on others to replace log sheets.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Yeah...  What sorta bugs me most about this instance  is the "CO" assuming everyone else has the same issues ("and like most...")...  

 

Maybe a NA log is in order, as this caching experience Needs Reviewer Attention due to the inattention of the CO.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think this yet qualifies as an ignored NM, but the reviewer has already stepped in (possibly prompted by the CHS), disabling the cache and threatening to archive it without further notice if nothing is done within 28 days. It's a D3 micro traditional, hidden in 2013 with 363 finds, 31 DNFs, 3 TDs, 2 Enables, 3 NMs and 12 OMs. The recent logs are:

 

04 Nov 18 - Found it

10 Nov 18 - DNF (cacher with 53 finds) saying "Think it might’ve been snatched"

25 Nov 18 - OM saying "Checked on the cache and it's still there!"

27 Nov 18 - Found it

27 Nov 18 - Found it

30 Nov 18 - DNF (cacher with 1617 finds) saying "I couldn't find it..."

22 Dec 18 - DNF (cacher with 10 finds) saying "No idea :("

23 Dec 18 - DNF (cacher with 23 finds) saying "looked for 15mins but didn’t find it :("

08 Jan 19 - DNF and NM (cacher with 60 finds) saying "This was hard CO check suggested"

08 Jan 19 - DNF (cacher with 63 finds) saying "couldn't find it didn't see anything unusual around"

13 Jan 19 - WN from CO saying "Don't be discouraged by all the DNFs. We are quite confident that this cache is still in place as in the SIX years it's now been in place, it's never gone missing. We will check on it when as soon as we're able to do another round of the dam. In the meantime, keep looking!"

24 Jan 19 - DNF (cacher with 4 finds) saying "We found this one hard & couldnt find!"

27 Jan 19 - TD from reviewer, saying "The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness. If you require more time please be sure to post a note (not an email) explaining the situation and how much more time you require. For ongoing issues please ensure you visit the listing and post a new note every 28 days to keep everyone up to date, if you do not then you cache may be archived without further note from a reviewer. Caches archived due to lack of maintenance are no longer unarchived and you will need to submit a replacement as a new cache."

 

So what do you think? It's been 19 days since the NM and 14 days since the WN from the CO saying he'll check on it soon. Many of the DNFs are from cachers with little experience, the two DNFs on the 8th of January said they were caching together, and it is after all a D3 micro. Is the reviewer being a bit hasty stepping in on this so soon?

 

 

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't think this yet qualifies as an ignored NM, but the reviewer has already stepped in (possibly prompted by the CHS), disabling the cache and threatening to archive it without further notice if nothing is done within 28 days. It's a D3 micro traditional, hidden in 2013 with 363 finds, 31 DNFs, 3 TDs, 2 Enables, 3 NMs and 12 OMs. The recent logs are:

 

04 Nov 18 - Found it

10 Nov 18 - DNF (cacher with 53 finds) saying "Think it might’ve been snatched"

25 Nov 18 - OM saying "Checked on the cache and it's still there!"

27 Nov 18 - Found it

27 Nov 18 - Found it

30 Nov 18 - DNF (cacher with 1617 finds)

22 Dec 18 - DNF (cacher with 10 finds)

23 Dec 18 - DNF (cacher with 23 finds)

08 Jan 19 - DNF and NM (cacher with 60 finds)

08 Jan 19 - DNF (cacher with 63 finds)

13 Jan 19 - WN from CO saying "Don't be discouraged by all the DNFs. We are quite confident that this cache is still in place as in the SIX years it's now been in place, it's never gone missing. We will check on it when as soon as we're able to do another round of the dam. In the meantime, keep looking!"

24 Jan 19 - DNF (cacher with 4 finds)

27 Jan 19 - TD from reviewer, saying "The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary. Please respond to this situation in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness. If you require more time please be sure to post a note (not an email) explaining the situation and how much more time you require. For ongoing issues please ensure you visit the listing and post a new note every 28 days to keep everyone up to date, if you do not then you cache may be archived without further note from a reviewer. Caches archived due to lack of maintenance are no longer unarchived and you will need to submit a replacement as a new cache."

 

So what do you think? It's been 19 days since the NM and 14 days since the WN from the CO saying he'll check on it soon. Many of the DNFs are from cachers with little experience, the two DNFs on the 8th of January said they were caching together, and it is after all a D3 micro. Is the reviewer being a bit hasty stepping in on this so soon?

 

 

What’s the owner’s history like? Does he hide a lot of caches which get a lot of DNFs and NMs?. Why doesn’t he up the D rating to D4?  

Share this post


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

What’s the owner’s history like? Does he hide a lot of caches which get a lot of DNFs and NMs?. Why doesn’t he up the D rating to D4?  

 

Joined in 2011, has 40 hides, only one other with an outstanding NM which he's currently disabled while constructing a replacement.

 

As for the D rating, in total it's had 31 DNFs from 363 finds. Does that really justify raising it to D4?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So what do you think? It's been 19 days since the NM and 14 days since the WN from the CO saying he'll check on it soon. Many of the DNFs are from cachers with little experience, the two DNFs on the 8th of January said they were caching together, and it is after all a D3 micro. Is the reviewer being a bit hasty stepping in on this so soon?

Your wording gives me pause. One the one hand, this is exactly the kind of cache I don't think the reviewer should be involved with. It's a good example of why I wish we hadn't gone this way where reviewers are responsible for identifying and taking action against bad caches. But since we have gone down this path, it's seems obvious that the CHS will be bad for this cache, and it has become standard for reviewers to take action when the CHS flags a cache without worrying about the details. So I'm reluctant to say the reviewer's being hasty: he's just doing his job which requires him to prioritize getting rid of bad caches over worrying about whether good caches are accidentally archived in the process.

 

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

What’s the owner’s history like? Does he hide a lot of caches which get a lot of DNFs and NMs?. Why doesn’t he up the D rating to D4?  

Why do you think the CO having a sketchy history should be factored into whether we approve of the cache being archived even when there's nothing wrong with it?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

It's been 19 days since the NM and 14 days since the WN from the CO saying he'll check on it soon.

In my area, the fact that the CO is active and responsive would carry more weight than the CHS and the number of Finds people have that are posting the DNF's.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


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

What’s the owner’s history like? Does he hide a lot of caches which get a lot of DNFs and NMs?. Why doesn’t he up the D rating to D4?  

 

We're talking about a single cache.  While owner history might have a little bit of relevance, it shouldn't factor too much into the discussion about this single cache.  In the two months' worth of logs provided, the CO has posted an OM log as well as a note to the page.

 

Upping the D rating is going to help the cache by doing what?  It will still apparently get as many DNFs as it currently does and it will still have cachers file NM logs that suppose the cache is missing because they couldn't find it.  I imagine it might provide for just a little bit of extra time before the CHS falls below the threshold as the higher D rating would be a little more forgiving in the algorithm.

 

Is a less than 10% DNF rate worth 4 stars?  Not in my book it's not.  If we make the assumption that a 1 D cache should be found 100% of the time and a 5 D should be found, at it's very best, 50% of the time, that means, statistically speaking, a 3 D cache should be found 75% of the time.  If cachers believe 5 D caches should only be found 25% of the time, then that 3 D cache would be found 63% of the time.

 

Do you feel it's a valid NM log, considering the CO posted an OM log, it had two finds and then 3 DNFs before the person who filed the NM filed their DNF (with all of 60 finds to their credit), all in the span of just 2 months?  I don't feel it's a valid use of the log.

 

As to the question asked, it's my guess that this was a CHS triggered action by the reviewer rather than a reviewer triggered action based solely on the NM log.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

In my area, the fact that the CO is active and responsive would carry more weight than the CHS and the number of Finds people have that are posting the DNF's.

Carry more weight for what? In my area, an active and responsive CO is appreciated, but that makes little difference if the logs indicate a problem that require me to post an NM or NA. For one thing, I expect an active, responsive CO to appreciate NMs and NAs, so I'm not as worried about the effects of errors in my conclusions.

 

I hope you're not suggesting that the CO's history is taken into account by reviewers when they take unilateral action based on the CHS. Although I know it can't be helped in secret behind the scenes, a reviewer that does that overtly would, by definition, be playing favorites, and that disturbs me.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Carry more weight for what? In my area, an active and responsive CO is appreciated, but that makes little difference if the logs indicate a problem that require me to post an NM or NA. For one thing, I expect an active, responsive CO to appreciate NMs and NAs, so I'm not as worried about the effects of errors in my conclusions.

 

I hope you're not suggesting that the CO's history is taken into account by reviewers when they take unilateral action based on the CHS. Although I know it can't be helped in secret behind the scenes, a reviewer that does that overtly would, by definition, be playing favorites, and that disturbs me.

I can only speak for what I observe in my area. An active and responsive cache owner appears to be given the benefit of the doubt. If the problem persists for months on end without action, then the Reviewer will, in all likelihood, eventually Archive the Listing. I can think of one example where caches were in a burn area which was closed to public access for more than a year. The CO continued to post updates, so the Listings were Disabled for quite some time. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Is a less than 10% DNF rate worth 4 stars?  Not in my book it's not.  If we make the assumption that a 1 D cache should be found 100% of the time and a 5 D should be found, at it's very best, 50% of the time, that means, statistically speaking, a 3 D cache should be found 75% of the time.  If cachers believe 5 D caches should only be found 25% of the time, then that 3 D cache would be found 63% of the time.

 

The rating guideline for a D2 says "Relatively easy to find or solve within 30 minutes" yet on this D3 one of the DNFers said in their log that they only searched for 15 minutes. For a D4 it says "Very difficult and may take special knowledge, advanced preparation, or multiple trips" and from what I can see from previous find logs, this cache doesn't require special knowledge, advanced preparation or multiple trips, it's just well-camouflaged and takes a fair bit of searching. I think D3 is probably about right as it sounds similar to another D3 I found a year or so back that took an hour of searching before I finally spotted the camo - that one often gets five or six DNFs in a row before someone finally spots it again.

 

What bothers me most about this is the timing of the reviewer's action. The CO had already responded to the NM saying he's pretty sure the cache is still there but will check on it soon when the opportunity arises (and he responded in the correct way with a WN, not an armchair OM), yet just 14 days later the reviewer steps in and disables it. Had another month or two passed with no follow-up action by the CO then fair enough, but 14 days seems to be jumping the gun, especially as it's the summer holiday season here with many people going away for their annual escape so it's quite possible the CO mightn't even be home at this time.

 

It just all seems to be about the guaranteed smiley - we can't let anyone attempt a cache if there's the slightest chance it might be missing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What bothers me most about this is the timing of the reviewer's action. The CO had already responded to the NM saying he's pretty sure the cache is still there but will check on it soon when the opportunity arises (and he responded in the correct way with a WN, not an armchair OM), yet just 14 days later the reviewer steps in and disables it. Had another month or two passed with no follow-up action by the CO then fair enough, but 14 days seems to be jumping the gun, especially as it's the summer holiday season here with many people going away for their annual escape so it's quite possible the CO mightn't even be home at this time.

 

It just all seems to be about the guaranteed smiley - we can't let anyone attempt a cache if there's the slightest chance it might be missing.

 

The epilogue of all this is that the CO checked on the cache today and, as he expected, it was fine. Perhaps there's a lesson that not all caches that are difficult to find and get half a dozen DNFs in a row are missing.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just a further thought on this. The action the reviewer took in response to that NM is the same as his response to an NA (disable the cache and give the CO 28 days to respond or it will be archived without further notice). Even the text he used in his TD is the same in both cases. So is there now any practical difference between an NM and an NA?

 

And as a corollary, should we now avoid using an NM for any situation that doesn't warrant an NA?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

For fear of getting into another one of these... I haven't made a judgement either way, but just some observations:

* The CHS isn't to blame for this. The reviewer is the one making the judgement

* Upping the D would only affect the CHS; but it could possibly dissuade some people from trying for the harder cache, or expecting to find it more easily (ie fewer attempts on the cache, and dnfs)

* I think the reviewer may have jumped the gun on the disable

* I think the reviewer also didn't do anything wrong, per se

* The reviewer's note seemed to be the canned note for the common occurrence

* The CO could have possibly done another note and re-enable before getting in the reviewer's bad books

* If the CO basically ignored a requested for checkup (NM) and re-enabled, that could be interpreted negatively by the reviewer as well prompting quicker action

* If the amount of time between the NM and the reviewer note (seems to be 19 days; 3 weeks) was past the reviewer's threshold, there may have been nothing the CO could have done other than a full and complete firsthand checkup with OM and re-enable, to avoid the reviewer note.

* The reviewer assuming validity of logs before making a judgment can be risky, just as it's risky on the CO's end to assume there's nothing wrong based solely on DNFers' find counts

* The posted NM didn't have any effect like a NA log. The NM did exactly what it was intended to do.  I would expect a NA log to more quickly have prompted a reviewer's next log to be either Archival with a reason, or a Note explaining why not, or nothing.  The process shown here is pretty typical of the sequence once a NM is posted, at least in my area.

* All the owner needed to do after the disable is verify the cache so the front-facing appearance of it is that it IS there, rather than the string of DNFs and NM that many will see without making their own judgments basing off those users' find counts, but moreso based on their understandings of the D and T.

* I'd think this turn of events is more common out there than we think.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* The CHS isn't to blame for this. The reviewer is the one making the judgement

 

No one is putting the "blame" on the CHS.  I'm pointing out that I believe the CHS is what triggered the reviewer action.  That doesn't mean the CHS is wrong.  However, if it was the CHS that triggered the reviewer action, indications (at least on this cache) are that it appears the reviewer skipped the "courtesy" post that says they'll check back in 30 days and then take any needed action after that.  This one went straight to the disablement with the overhanging possibility of archival.  Even if the reviewer stepped in due to the NM log rather than the CHS, why the immediate disabling and possible archival?  That seems hasty.

 

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* The reviewer's note seemed to be the canned note for the common occurrence

 

Yes, except for the fact that it was the canned disable and possible archive note rather than the usual courtesy note beforehand.  We both agree that it seems odd that the reviewer went straight to the disable (in one of your bullets before the above one) canned note.

 

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* The CO could have possibly done another note and re-enable before getting in the reviewer's bad books

 

Why?  An OM and a note in less than 3 months means the CO should do more to get out of the reviewer's bad books?  With the exception of one of the cachers, all the other seekers with DNFs have less than 100 finds.  I'm not a reviewer, but the CO's actions over the past 3 months as well as the fact that all but one of the cachers are newer cachers would seem to say that there isn't really much to do regarding this cache.  If it were the CHS that triggered the reviewer, that means the CO would have received the note and it appears, at least as it pertains to this cache, the CO isn't adverse to performing maintenance, so the nudge would have probably been all that was needed.  Also, I'm not sure why you think the CO could have re-enabled it to avoid getting on the wrong side of the reviewer.  The reviewer was the one who just disabled the cache after all the DNFs and the NM log.  How could the CO re-enable something if it were already enabled just to prevent the reviewer from disabling it because they're now on the naughty list?

 

28 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* If the CO basically ignored a requested for checkup (NM) and re-enabled, that could be interpreted negatively by the reviewer as well prompting quicker action

 

A request from a cacher with 60 finds - on a 3 D cache.  There is no enabling of a disabled cache here, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to raise.  The NM was filed and then the cache sat, active, for roughly 3 weeks until the reviewer disabled it just the other day.  The CO posted a note less than a week after the NM log but didn't disable it because they were pretty sure it was there, which was proven to be the case.

 

35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* If the amount of time between the NM and the reviewer note (seems to be 19 days; 3 weeks) was past the reviewer's threshold, there may have been nothing the CO could have done other than a full and complete firsthand checkup with OM and re-enable, to avoid the reviewer note.

 

But it wasn't a reviewer note; it was a note AND a disabling of the cache.  That seems to be jumping the gun, especially considering the CO posted a note 5 days after the NM log was filed.  The reviewer allowed the CO only 2 weeks before stepping in and disabling the cache.

 

36 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* The reviewer assuming validity of logs before making a judgment can be risky, just as it's risky on the CO's end to assume there's nothing wrong based solely on DNFers' find counts

 

What logs is the reviewer determining validity of?  It seems to me that the reviewer believes every log (DNFs and the NM) is valid, although I'd posit that the NM log is iffy at best.  I'd have first contacted the CO rather than filed the NM for a check-up.  I'd also assume, if I were caching in the area, that this cache was still in place based on the logs of those who filed the DNF as well as the fact that the CO replied with a note shortly after a series of DNFs. I believe the reviewer made a hasty judgment to move straight to disabling the cache.

 

51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

* The posted NM didn't have any effect like a NA log. The NM did exactly what it was intended to do.  I would expect a NA log to more quickly have prompted a reviewer's next log to be either Archival with a reason, or a Note explaining why not, or nothing.  The process shown here is pretty typical of the sequence once a NM is posted, at least in my area.

 

It caused the reviewer to post the canned note AND disable the cache.  Since when does a NM log lead to a disablement without first posting the canned note that "it appears this cache needs maintenance"?  In my area I've NEVER seen a NM cause a reviewer to file the canned note AND disable a cache in situations like this.  I've only seen it when a cache has more than one NM log on file with no CO response of any kind.  It certainly didn't do what a NA log would have done, which is exactly what should happen in Bruce's explanation above.  Even the CHS allows for a posted courtesy note before the reviewer moves to a disabling of a cache.  The process THIS example employs isn't very typical in my area, where a canned note is filed first and roughly 4 weeks later (or whatever time frame the reviewer uses), it's disabled if no action is taken. This reviewer skipped a step with this cache.

 

59 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

All the owner needed to do after the disable is verify the cache so the front-facing appearance of it is that it IS there, rather than the string of DNFs and NM that many will see without making their own judgments basing off those users' find counts, but moreso based on their understandings of the D and T.

 

They did.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  When did you think it was disabled?  After the NM log?  The cache was disabled on the 27th by the reviewer and the CO checked on it the 28th. I think I have my days right.  The Aussies are always ahead but I'm never sure by how much.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

No one is putting the "blame" on the CHS.  I'm pointing out that I believe the CHS is what triggered the reviewer action.  That doesn't mean the CHS is wrong.  However, if it was the CHS that triggered the reviewer action, indications (at least on this cache) are that it appears the reviewer skipped the "courtesy" post that says they'll check back in 30 days and then take any needed action after that.  This one went straight to the disablement with the overhanging possibility of archival.  Even if the reviewer stepped in due to the NM log rather than the CHS, why the immediate disabling and possible archival?  That seems hasty.

 

Around here, that "courtesy post" (which is not mandated of all reviewers, afaik) IS a disable, not a 'Note'.  That is what was posted.

 

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Why?  An OM and a note in less than 3 months means the CO should do more to get out of the reviewer's bad books?  With the exception of one of the cachers, all the other seekers with DNFs have less than 100 finds.  I'm not a reviewer, but the CO's actions over the past 3 months as well as the fact that all but one of the cachers are newer cachers would seem to say that there isn't really much to do regarding this cache.

 

* Strictly speaking, the logs indicate many DNFs and a NM. Just because users have few finds doesn't mean that the cache IS still there. A reviewer can still decide to judge that the CO should check on it, because it really might be missing. Yet it might not. That's a reviewer's call. My point about getting in the 'bad books' was that a reviewer might interpret a CO cancelling any concern without due checkup as a Bad Thing, as opposed to say adding a note to indicate "yeah, I saw the concern, and I will check it out as soon as I'm able" without removing the NM flag, for example. Again, that's a subjective reviewer thing; I'm just commenting based on what I've seen happen in the past.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Also, I'm not sure why you think the CO could have re-enabled it to avoid getting on the wrong side of the reviewer.  The reviewer was the one who just disabled the cache after all the DNFs and the NM log.  How could the CO re-enable something if it were already enabled just to prevent the reviewer from disabling it because they're now on the naughty list?

 

??  I'm saying, I've seen people respond in a way to concern on their cache (posted a note, or OM in response to a NM), then a reviewer step in with an "auto" style response disabling it, then they re-enable it with a clear explanation, and not get on the naughty list. Slim chance, but it's happened, usually in instances of a reviewer misunderstanding. I didn't say anything about re-enabling an already enabled cache, not sure how you got that.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

The NM was filed and then the cache sat, active, for roughly 3 weeks until the reviewer disabled it just the other day.  The CO posted a note less than a week after the NM log but didn't disable it because they were pretty sure it was there, which was proven to be the case.

 

If the reviewer just posted the note, then this would be a non-issue. The issue was that the reviewer disabled the cache after the 3 week window of a NM posted without an OM.  Or to be clear, there was a DNF, followed by an OM (not in response to a NM, but as an 'a-ok' from the CO), then a NM was posted later, followed by an owner note, and then the reviewer disable after 3 weeks with the NM active.

That 3 week window of an unaddressed NM is, the way I see it, what prompted the reviewer's disable. (besides what we believe to infer from the latest logs about the cache state)

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

But it wasn't a reviewer note; it was a note AND a disabling of the cache.  That seems to be jumping the gun, especially considering the CO posted a note 5 days after the NM log was filed.  The reviewer allowed the CO only 2 weeks before stepping in and disabling the cache.

 

According to the list posted above, it was DNF - OM - DNFs - NM - Note - Disable.  There was no OM after the NM. Strictly speaking, a canned disable would be expected (given say a 3 week window) if the reviewer didn't make any exception based on judging relevant past logs.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

What logs is the reviewer determining validity of?  It seems to me that the reviewer believes every log (DNFs and the NM) is valid, although I'd posit that the NM log is iffy at best.  I'd have first contacted the CO rather than filed the NM for a check-up.  I'd also assume, if I were caching in the area, that this cache was still in place based on the logs of those who filed the DNF as well as the fact that the CO replied with a note shortly after a series of DNFs. I believe the reviewer made a hasty judgment to move straight to disabling the cache.

 

Okay.  I don't disagree. See some of the points I posted above. I'm just reacting the actions that have been taken, not commenting on what I think should have happened. (unless prepended with "I think" =P)

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It caused the reviewer to post the canned note AND disable the cache.  Since when does a NM log lead to a disablement without first posting the canned note that "it appears this cache needs maintenance"?

 

:o

Well it seems you live in a very different region. If a cache here has has an outstanding unaddressed NM for a month, the norm is a reviewer disable. A reviewer here might contact the CO to give them a nudge, but they're under no obligation. The cache is still there and active, it's nothing like an archival. The owner just needs to respond (in a manner that makes sense) - ideally to ensure that the cache is active and findable again, before the reviewer determines that it should be archived.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

In my area I've NEVER seen a NM cause a reviewer to file the canned note AND disable a cache in situations like this.  I've only seen it when a cache has more than one NM log on file with no CO response of any kind.  It certainly didn't do what a NA log would have done, which is exactly what should happen in Bruce's explanation above.

 

Well again, if that's the case, then your region has a different reviewer process than ours, and it seems different than the OP's cache's region.

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Even the CHS allows for a posted courtesy note before the reviewer moves to a disabling of a cache.

 

Sounds like you're taking some level of offense at the disabling of the cache. Why?

 

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

They did.  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  When did you think it was disabled?  After the NM log?  The cache was disabled on the 27th by the reviewer and the CO checked on it the 28th. I think I have my days right.  The Aussies are always ahead but I'm never sure by how much.

 

Sure the CO's check after the disable wasn't what I was analyzing since that wasn't posted in the original concern which ended with the reviewer's TD.  I'd say the disable did its job - the CO verified the cache was findable and re-activated it and cleaned up its NM state.  No harm no foul (aside from some annoyance, which could possibly have been avoided either by the reviewer being a little more lax in their judgment, or perhaps a previous finder verifying for the CO that's it's there and informing them, who could have then posted the OM - not a note - explaining how it's still findable and clearing the flag).

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

My point about getting in the 'bad books' was that a reviewer might interpret a CO cancelling any concern without due checkup as a Bad Thing, as opposed to say adding a note to indicate "yeah, I saw the concern, and I will check it out as soon as I'm able" without removing the NM flag, for example.

 

But that's exactly what this CO did but the reviewer still disabled it.  

"13 Jan 19 - WN from CO saying "Don't be discouraged by all the DNFs. We are quite confident that this cache is still in place as in the SIX years it's now been in place, it's never gone missing. We will check on it when as soon as we're able to do another round of the dam. In the meantime, keep looking!""

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Sounds like you're taking some level of offense at the disabling of the cache. Why?

 

Because that's not how it's been done here unless there are usually 2 NMs with no CO response.  Part of that might be that we only have 1 reviewer for the entire state, but even when we had multiple reviewers, a NM always got the courtesy post from the reviewer, notifying the CO that they're aware this cache might need maintenance and that if they come back and there's no action, they'll disable it.

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Strictly speaking, a canned disable would be expected (given say a 3 week window) if the reviewer didn't make any exception based on judging relevant past logs.

 

A canned courtesy note is what is expected here and then the canned disable if no action taken.  If our reviewer were to go to this particular method, NMs would be actively discouraged in our area as they would potentially lead to lots more disabled caches.  As it is, many of us in the area know each other and usually send messages or texts to each other regarding cache issues, rather than filing the NM logs.  I have no problem filing a NM log when a cache needs it but if it leads directly to disabling rather than the "normal" time frame here, I'd be less inclined to do so.  I wouldn't want that extra hassle and I wouldn't want to do that to any other of my CO friends either.  Some of the COs are snowbirds so are gone 2-3 months at a time and a note wouldn't suffice to clear the disable or the NM log so it would most likely remain in limbo (disabled but not archived) until such time as the COs could reach a local or get back to town to check on it themselves.  To me, and it appears to Jeff as well, this quick turnaround appears to be geared more towards the idea that a CO needs to verify their cache is in place and ready to be found (and found in good shape) than run the risk of accruing DNFs. 

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

My point about getting in the 'bad books' was that a reviewer might interpret a CO cancelling any concern without due checkup as a Bad Thing, as opposed to say adding a note to indicate "yeah, I saw the concern, and I will check it out as soon as I'm able" without removing the NM flag, for example.

 

But that's exactly what this CO did but the reviewer still disabled it.

 

No, the CO didn't remove the NM flag, they only posted the note and left the flag. Thus the reviewer's next basic action would be disabling -- unless they read the detail and judged it okay leave in its low score state. In this case, either the reviewer read and felt the disabling was warranted given the 3 week NM grace period (which is apparently different in your area), or the reviewer didn't read and just went straight to the basic next step - disabling after 3 weeks of needing maintenance.

 

The context of the point you quoted was whether the CO would re-enable after the reviewer disable -- OR repeatedly post an OM to clear the maintenance flag without actually checking up. That wasn't in the scope of the quoted logs above.  The CO didn't cancel any concern. They acted according to their knowledge and judgment of their cache's state. The reviewer followed (presumably) protocol, by disabling a maintenance-needed cache which hadn't been addressed (flag removal or archival) in a 3 week period; or was judged to warrant disabling - this one being a judgment we feel would have been incorrect; but we aren't reviewers, and many reviewers are dogs.

 

34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Sounds like you're taking some level of offense at the disabling of the cache. Why?

 

Because that's not how it's been done here unless there are usually 2 NMs with no CO response.  Part of that might be that we only have 1 reviewer for the entire state, but even when we had multiple reviewers, a NM always got the courtesy post from the reviewer, notifying the CO that they're aware this cache might need maintenance and that if they come back and there's no action, they'll disable it.

 

Here, our reviewers might make a private contact before taking an action on a cache; a pre-warning of sorts that the next step in their protocol is coming. There's no public note in their standard process before a disabling. There might be, but its certainly not the norm. The process of the quoted logs above doesn't surprise me, from a very basic procedural standpoint.  The disabling was after an unaddressed maintenance flag for 3 weeks. AFAIK, there is no obligation for a reviewer to post a public note warning of an impending disable due to an outstanding maintenance flag.

 

Now, if the reviewer had disabled after say a few days, or a week since the NM, then I'd cry foul - and if that were their normal procedure I might file a complaint that the reviewers are far too quick to disable after a NM. But 3 weeks? enh.  Given the fact that a reviewer disable is not something to be offended about, since all it takes is a check and verification to re-enable and clear the maint flag... It's not like the cache was archived.

 

34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Strictly speaking, a canned disable would be expected (given say a 3 week window) if the reviewer didn't make any exception based on judging relevant past logs.

 

A canned courtesy note is what is expected here and then the canned disable if no action taken.

 

Is the cache in question in your region? If not, then I wouldn't project your region's reviewing policy there. If those reviewers' actions are the norm for that region, then I'm not surprised at the turn of events. I might ask to know if the reviewer read past logs, but I wouldn't say the reviewer did anything wrong, if that's their procedure.

 

34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I have no problem filing a NM log when a cache needs it but if it leads directly to disabling rather than the "normal" time frame here, I'd be less inclined to do so.

 

I would only file a NM if I felt the cache actually needs maintenance. And if the cache state went unaddressed for 3 weeks then I wouldn't be upset if the reviewer stepped in.  After all, all it takes is the cache owner to follow up - either with the reviewer, or with a note on the cache page; since after that it really is entirely reviewer judgment as to whether, in time, a listing should be archived due to inactivity or not.  Typically, a reviewer disabling a cache makes the CO take notice, and prioritize a maintenance run (needed or not) to re-instate the cache's good standing to the public.

Win.

 

34 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Some of the COs are snowbirds so are gone 2-3 months at a time and a note wouldn't suffice to clear the disable or the NM log so it would most likely remain in limbo

 

This has already been discussed. Most reviewers are happy to know if there's a maintenance plan for a cache if its owner will knowingly be away for months at a time, and adjust their reviewing timelines accordingly for the CO. As a CO, I would not be surprised if a reviewer took action on my cache that was accruing DNFs (which I can't verify to actually be findable) if I either

A] took no action to inform reviewers or the community that I'm away and will address it when I return (let alone remove the maint flag w/o checking)

or

B] hadn't informed reviewers earlier that I'd be away and any potential issues will be handled when I return, or informed that I had a friend willing to run maintenance while I'm away.

 

ie, if you're going away 2-3 months, prepare a maintenance plan for your caches, and let reviewers know. Win.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

As Bruce seems to believe, it was the ignored NM in this specific example that triggered the reviewer to disable the cache so that the CO could check on it.  While I don't 100% agree ( I think it also might have been the CHS), it's certainly a strong possibility.  It seems to me that a singular ignored (less than a month) NM (despite the CO posting a note that they will get to it when they can), at least in some areas, is grounds for a reviewer to disable a cache.  Fine.  I don't really have a huge problem with that as it's the reviewer's prerogative.  However, I again re-iterate my point, from a separate thread, about why the CHS email isn't automatically triggered when a NM log is filed.  Shouldn't the CHS email be used as the nudge it's supposed to be to get a conscientious CO to check on the cache BEFORE a reviewer would disable the cache due to the NM?  Might that not actually prevent the reviewer from having to take action?

 

The reviewer wouldn't disable a cache if they thought nothing was wrong, regardless of the reason for the disablement.  They think something is wrong so ergo, the possibility exists that there's something wrong with the health of the cache as well.  If it's not there, there is no cache (bad) and if it''s disabled because it's got standing water in it, it's obviously in poor health (again, bad).  Since the CHS can't automatically trigger anything, why wouldn't GS choose to send something that lets a CO know that something might be wrong in the hopes that they check on their cache and then file the appropriate OM log.  If the CO does as suggested, the reviewer has absolutely nothing to do.  The cache is fixed, replaced, or checked and the issue is resolved. If not, they're reviewing it anyway for the ignored NM log and making a determination (3-4 weeks after the NM log is filed) to disable or ignore it.  Either way, the CO gets the opportunity to address any possible issues before the reviewer becomes involved.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

* The CHS isn't to blame for this. The reviewer is the one making the judgement

More and more, I'm seeing reviewer actions like this is where the only judgement the reviewer is making is that the CHS is bad. I guess I have too much respect for the intelligence of all reviewers to think that any reviewer could read these logs, but then still made the judgement that action was necessary, so I have to believe there's a trust-the-CHS attitude, whether official or per reviewer. The word "blame" is loaded, but there's no question whatsoever that the reviewer took this action because of the CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I again re-iterate my point, from a separate thread, about why the CHS email isn't automatically triggered when a NM log is filed.  Shouldn't the CHS email be used as the nudge it's supposed to be to get a conscientious CO to check on the cache BEFORE a reviewer would disable the cache due to the NM?  Might that not actually prevent the reviewer from having to take action?

 

The only reason I saw for saying no to that is the belief that the email a CO already gets stating that the NM has been filed should be sufficient to cause the CO not to dilly dally, but to attend to the outstanding maint flag. A CHS nudge would be redundant. I personally wouldn't care either way, but others have made arguments about why the score wouldn't be pushed below the threshold by the existence of the NM. I don't recall them, but that discussion has been had elsewhere. Unless you want to rehash that again here =P

 

18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

They think something is wrong so ergo

 

Or, they took the next step in their standard procedure, and skipped all the extra work reviewing past logs going straight to the base next step (since all that extra work isn't mandatory), and disabled. Oh, it sure would be nice if every reviewer always went above and beyond to take the time to review every single relevant piece of information surrounding a specific documented set of circumstances when taking an action in their standard procedure to minimize every risk of making a slightly inconvenient judgment call...

 

18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Since the CHS can't automatically trigger anything, why wouldn't GS choose to send something that lets a CO know that something might be wrong in the hopes that they check on their cache and then file the appropriate OM log. If the CO does as suggested, the reviewer has absolutely nothing to do.  The cache is fixed, replaced, or checked and the issue is resolved.

 

You mean... the NM log? Of which every CO is notified? And which is included in a few (arguably) prominent locations on the website for the CO?

 

16 minutes ago, dprovan said:
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

* The CHS isn't to blame for this. The reviewer is the one making the judgement

More and more, I'm seeing reviewer actions like this is where the only judgement the reviewer is making is that the CHS is bad. I guess I have too much respect for the intelligence of all reviewers to think that any reviewer could read these logs, but then still made the judgement that action was necessary, so I have to believe there's a trust-the-CHS attitude, whether official or per reviewer. The word "blame" is loaded, but there's no question whatsoever that the reviewer took this action because of the CHS.

 

Yeah I don't doubt that the reviewer CHS tool brought the cache to their attention. But again, if their process in that region is to disable a cache if a standing NM isn't remvoed after 3 weeks, then the reviewer was under no obligation to read past logs to find out if they think the cache is actually still fine (even if the CO, who hasn't been there to verify, thinks it is). Far too many subjective judgments in this mix, so I wouldn't be surprised if the reviewer errs on the side of procedure - as, after all, it's not like the cache was archived.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Here, our reviewers might make a private contact before taking an action on a cache; a pre-warning of sorts that the next step in their protocol is coming.

Still? The basic problem I've felt since the CHS was put in place that the process is becoming impersonal, so I'm kinda surprised to hear that reviewers are privately contacting COs first. The trend behind the CHS is faster action, so I've just assumed reviewers would skip a personal note since it serves no purpose other than slow the process down. (Well, unless the CO's a friend, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're talking about.)

 

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

This has already been discussed. Most reviewers are happy to know if there's a maintenance plan for a cache if its owner will knowingly be away for months at a time, and adjust their timelines accordingly.

I missed or forgot this discussion, but, again, are you sure this is still current practice? Everything I'm seeing points to reviewers having no apparent interest in transient details anymore. If the cache looks bad, they don't seem to be brooking much variations. Didn't someone post an example involving a cache with a tradition of being disabled for winter every year that was archived anyway because the CHS flagged it? After all, the case we're discussing, the CO stated a "maintenance plan" right there in the log --"We will check on it when as soon as we're able to do another round of the dam" -- yet the reviewer still disabled the cache because it looked bad, regardless of whether you think it's the NM flag or the CHS that made it look bad. The reviewer doesn't seem to have even noticed the plan, let along been happy to accommodate it.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Just a further thought on this. The action the reviewer took in response to that NM is the same as his response to an NA (disable the cache and give the CO 28 days to respond or it will be archived without further notice). Even the text he used in his TD is the same in both cases. So is there now any practical difference between an NM and an NA?

 

And as a corollary, should we now avoid using an NM for any situation that doesn't warrant an NA?

I'm thinking that the CHS has kicked in locally as I have noticed many TDs by our local reviewer and, from what I can see, the TDs are warranted. The one highlighted by Jeff, I think, is one that may have slipped by the reviewer. In the TDs I have seen most are from strings of DNFs with or without an NM though most did have unactioned NMs. The TDs on caches without NMs seem to be on low D ratings. I think this reviewer is doing a great job.

I also noted four TDs on a PT of 21 caches.  Each had many DNFs with some unactioned NMs. No throwdowns on PTs here.

Edited by colleda
typo
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×