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 2

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 2

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 4

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

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

×