Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
edexter

Ignored Needs Maintenance logs

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:
39 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.)

 

In my own experience, it's been for caches I have disabled (myself) for an extended period saying i'll get to fixing up, but keep putting it off. So I appreciate they remind me; but I also know that charity can only stretch so far.  I haven't got a CHS email; I've never had an outstanding NM I've completely ignored, putting them in the hotseat of nudging me or taking action. I always address outstanding issues, so it's likely that positively affects my cache CHS, for one, it also means I am (hopefully, knock on wood) in reviewers' good books based on reputation. That helps a lot. And if so, it wouldn't be unwarranted, imo. Many reviewers are dogs. Some are humans. :P

 

13 minutes ago, dprovan said:
43 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.

 

I don't know how various regions may have adjusted their procedures so I can't speak on that.  It's certainly possible, but all I've seen posted in the forums by reviewers is comments about allowing COs some leeway if they have presented maintenance plans for extended vacations.  So that's what I'm running with, though it may not apply to every region.

Share this post


Link to post
11 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.

 

We NEVER get a private note.  It's very similar to the CHS email and like the email, is just a reminder that you should check it or he'll be required to take the next step.

 

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, the CO didn't remove the NM flag, they only posted the note and left the flag.

 

But a note isn't good enough now to get extra time?  2 weeks?  That's all you get as a CO now to address possible issues?  I go on vacations longer than 2 weeks and my note to my cache won't garner me any extra time.  That seems to me to be an undue onus on a CO, given that type of time frame.

 

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

judged it okay leave in its low score state.

 

Which is it?  Now you're describing the CHS, not a NM log.  It appears you believe the reviewer action was triggered due to the NM log, not the CHS, so the score is irrelevant based on your assumption.  Since a NM log doesn't trigger a threshold drop, your claim that the NM log is the reason for the reviewer action implies that the CHS is above the threshold.  If the cache score was reset after the OM and stayed there after 2 finds, it seems a 3 D (not a 1 or 1.5 D cache) with only 6 DNFs and a NM log wouldn't trigger the CHS.  I, however, believe it did and it's a combination of the two factors that set these events into motion.

 

26 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

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.

 

It seems to me that you mention a note on the cache page as a means of following up, but the reviewer still disabled the cache after only 2 weeks.  You keep saying to head off action by following up, yet it appears the CO did as you suggested and still had action taken.  The biggest issue I have is the duration of time allotted to the CO.  I'm pretty sure most people have commented on here that the standard time given to fix an issue is usually around a month.  It think the CHS canned reviewer response says 30 days.  The NM was filed, the CO posted a note 5 days later letting everyone know that they were pretty sure it was in place, had never gone missing in 6 years, and they would get to it when they were next in the area and then 2 weeks later the reviewer disabled the cache.  Rather than take the CO's words at face value (which is a judgment call), they took the NM log as the more likely of the two scenarios (again a judgment call).  I'm not a reviewer, but I would have looked at the information and gone with the COs side in this situation.  I still would have monitored the cache on the off chance that something might be wrong but it turns out that the CO was right and the judgment of the reviewer was incorrect in this situation.

 

38 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

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.

 

I understood Jeff's post to mean that this was a quicker than normal reviewer response.  I know i can't apply my region's policy to this region, but you keep saying 19 days despite the fact that the CO followed up with a note 5 days later.  2 weeks went by and it was then disabled.  That seems awfully quick to me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, the CO didn't remove the NM flag, they only posted the note and left the flag.

 

Are you saying the CO should have made his post on the 13th (the one saying he was pretty sure the cache was still there and would check on it soon) an OM instead of a WN? But isn't there another thread about the evils of doing that (Maintained it = didn't maintain it)? Or are you saying the CO should have dropped everything else in his life and dashed out to check on the cache straight away?

 

You keep saying three weeks (well 19 days actually) from the NM to the reviewer disable is fair and reasonable, but is it really? It only spans two weekends and, as I said earlier, it's the middle of the summer holiday season here and a lot of people are away from home. Not every cache is easy for its CO to get to - some of mine take the best part of a day to go and visit, and there are some that simply can't be safely visited in adverse weather conditions (and anything that involves a lot of physical exertion would be inadvisable in the 40 degree Celsius heat we've had pretty much all this month). Given that the CO had already responded to the NM by saying he would check on it soon, that time span until the reviewer disable is way too short in my book.

 

And what was the purpose of the reviewer disabling that cache when he did? The CO had already said he was pretty sure it wasn't missing (and it turned out he was right) yet the reviewer still thought it necessary to remove that cache from play and threaten to archive it. Why? Because there was a chance it might be missing? Is it really the end of the world if someone goes searching for a cache that perhaps isn't there?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

No, the CO didn't remove the NM flag, they only posted the note and left the flag.

 

But a note isn't good enough now to get extra time?  2 weeks?  That's all you get as a CO now to address possible issues?  I go on vacations longer than 2 weeks and my note to my cache won't garner me any extra time.  That seems to me to be an undue onus on a CO, given that type of time frame.

 

I don't know. That's an exception up to the reviewer to grant.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

It appears you believe the reviewer action was triggered due to the NM log

 

Nothing "triggers" the reviewer action except the reviewer.  The reviewer decided to disable after 3 weeks with a maintenance flag, likely (since we don't know) brought to their attention by their CHS tool. That's it.  It's most possibly the exact same action they would have taken before they had the CHS tool during one of their typical 'sweeps'.  Why are we discussing the CHS tool? I don't recall anyone thinking their tool was a problem.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

If the cache score was reset after the OM and stayed there after 2 finds, it seems a 3 D (not a 1 or 1.5 D cache) with only 6 DNFs and a NM log wouldn't trigger the CHS.  I, however, believe it did and it's a combination of the two factors that set these events into motion.

 

I have no idea. The OM would have only addressed the logs posted before it (none of which apparently were a NM). 6 DNFs and a NM alone may well have dropped the health score given other properties. Then again maybe not. A reviewer isn't required to wait until a listing is below the threshold before taking action. Frankly it doesn't matter to me whether the reviewer was prompted by their CHS tool or not. The reviewer decided that 3 weeks with an active maintenance flag warranted a disable. If that's procedure in that region, then go take it to HQ or whoever decides procedure for that region to attempt to have it changed. If that's procedure, then the action was logical and warranted. They simply didn't grant an exception which we think would have been acceptable in this case given the context with past logs.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

It seems to me that you mention a note on the cache page as a means of following up, but the reviewer still disabled the cache after only 2 weeks.  You keep saying to head off action by following up, yet it appears the CO did as you suggested and still had action taken.

 

Yep. Sure. Because posting a note after a NM doesn't obligate a reviewer to extend their timeline. They can if they want, but they're not required to. The fact of the matter was that the flag was still active. And if that is sufficient in that region to warrant a disable after 3 weeks, then the reviewer did their job.  Even if we think an exception in that case would have been reasonable.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

The biggest issue I have is the duration of time allotted to the CO.  I'm pretty sure most people have commented on here that the standard time given to fix an issue is usually around a month.

 

Sure. In my region, that's a month with a NM flag. Then a disable. Then another month before an archival.  Above and beyond that, reviewers can grant exceptions if they wish. That's my region. Not every region is that way.

 

Ontario reviewer guidelines

Quote
  • If the Health Score of a cache is calculated below a dynamic threshold, an automatic alert email is sent to the cache owner by Geocaching HQ.
  • A Community Volunteer Reviewer may follow up to perform further actions on the cache page.
  • Neither Geocaching HQ or the Community Volunteer Reviewer can assess the true status of a cache; it is the responsibility of the cache owner, as part of cache maintenance.
  • If there are a multiple DNFs logs on a cache - the community may not know if the cache is missing or is simply hard to find.
  • If a cache page has several posted DNFs - and the cache owner knows that the cache is in definitely in place - they should reassure the community by posting a Note log.

e.g. "There have been a few DNFs, however it is a clever hide! I checked on it this morning. Check the hint!"

  • If a Community Volunteer Reviewer does not see a posted response from a cache owner on their cache page after several DNF/Maintenance Requests requests, it may be Disabled.
  • If a cache owner knows with certainty that their cache is in place and ready to be found, they may Enable the cache page, with an explanatory note.
  • If a cache owner is unable to definitively confirm the status of their cache, the cache page should remain Disabled and a Maintenance visit should be scheduled.
  • An Owner Maintenance log should only be posted after a maintenance visit has occurred.
  • Only when a cache is confirmed to be in place and ready to be found should a cache page be Enabled.

 

Bolded relevant portions.

And again - this is only for my region. It doesn't necessarily apply to the cache being discussed. But to my understanding from these forums, this is fairly standard process.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I still would have monitored the cache on the off chance that something might be wrong but it turns out that the CO was right and the judgment of the reviewer was incorrect in this situation.

 

Well as you know, many reviewers are dogs.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I know i can't apply my region's policy to this region, but you keep saying 19 days despite the fact that the CO followed up with a note 5 days later.  2 weeks went by and it was then disabled.

 

That's in reference to period of time since the NM was filed. Not since an innocuous Note was posted (which not everyone will see, let alone more prominently than the NEEDS MAINTENANCE flag). If policy is to disable after 3 weeks, 19 days, 15.5 days, whatever, then policy was followed, and an exception wasn't granted. We're free to disagree with that last portion, but reviewers are dogs, and it's unlikely that HQ will reprimand the reviewer for not granting an exception in a case that is ultimately a minor annoyance yet a potent can of stinky worms in the forums.

 

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Are you saying the CO should have made his post on the 13th (the one saying he was pretty sure the cache was still there and would check on it soon) an OM instead of a WN? But isn't there another thread about the evils of doing that (Maintained it = didn't maintain it)? Or are you saying the CO should have dropped everything else in his life and dashed out to check on the cache straight away?

 

I don't know what the owner should have done. I think the owner did everything the way I would have in that situation (assuming I couldn't get to gz for more than 19 days). But I'm not the one complaining that the cache was disabled. If it happened to me, I wouldn't be surprised. In fact it has happened to me. If it was archived though, absolutely I'd complain.

 

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

You keep saying three weeks (well 19 days actually) from the NM to the reviewer disable is fair and reasonable, but is it really?

 

I don't know, that's entirely subjective. I say 3 weeks (well 19 days actually, which is 2 days from 21, so I opted for simplicity since we don't know any specific timeframe rule in this case and 3 weeks is nearly 1 month) because in my region 1 month does absolutely seem a reasonable grace period to let an unmaintained cache stand before reviewer action, assuming no maintenance plan has been put in place and therefore the CO is within reasonable maintenance distance.  So yes, 19 days, to be exact, seems a reasonable basic maintenance window, in my opinion. But I'm not the reviewer.

 

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Not every cache is easy for its CO to get to

 

Sure. Your point? I would contact the reviewer and tell them my maintenance plan, if I knew I wouldn't get to it within the reasonable maintenance period. If none of that applied, or I merely posted a note hoping the reviewer would see it (they are not obligated to), then I wouldn't be surprised if it got disabled for the still-outstanding flag. But I'd likely go to the reviewer and work it out with them directly.

 

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Given that the CO had already responded to the NM by saying he would check on it soon, that time span until the reviewer disable is way too short in my book.

 

Sure. I wouldn't disagree. I'm saying if it's reviewer policy, then the reviewer did his job. If that window is say 2 months, then the reviewer did not do his job. In this case, I'm assuming the reviewer did his job but also did not grant an exception in this case, which could have been done if the reviewer had come to the same conclusion as us from analyzing recent logs and the log posters (which they're not obligated to do).

 

48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And what was the purpose of the reviewer disabling that cache when he did? The CO had already said he was pretty sure it wasn't missing (and it turned out he was right) yet the reviewer still thought it necessary to remove that cache from play and threaten to archive it.

 

It's not "removed from play". I've often gone searched for and found disabled caches (using normal search functions) that were still physically available to be found. Mainly because I read past logs and judged for myself that the cache is probably still there, in many cases only disabled because the owner is inactive.

The purpose of the reviewer disabling the cache when he did, presumably, is because that was standard procedure given the grace period having an active NM flag, and the reviewer can't tell the future, and has no obligation to go check on the cache themselves to determine that past DNFs don't mean the cache is missing.

Again, do I think the reviewer could have granted an exception? Certainly. But they're not obligated to, despite how any one of us interprets recent logs.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure. Your point? I would contact the reviewer and tell them my maintenance plan, if I knew I wouldn't get to it within the reasonable maintenance period. If none of that applied, or I merely posted a note hoping the reviewer would see it (they are not obligated to), then I wouldn't be surprised if it got disabled for the outstanding flag.

 

I would have thought that the reviewer ought to at least look at the logs that have been posted since the NM before deciding to take action, not just see the uncleared NM flag and automatically disable it. If that's the case, why do we even need a reviewer to do that? Why not just have the CHS automatically disable any cache it pings? I thought the whole purpose of having the reviewer take that step was so they could assess the cache and read the logs before making a reasoned decision. Also, in the reviewer's TD log, he specifically says If you require more time please be sure to post a note (not an email) explaining the situation - this is exactly what the CO did a week after the NM but now you're saying that's wrong and he should have emailed the reviewer (something the reviewer has specifically said not to do).

 

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It's not "removed from play". I've often gone searched for and found disabled caches (using normal search functions) that were still physically available to be found.

 

Whenever I've disabled one of my caches, it's because I don't want people going out looking for it. Often it's because there's maintenance works going on in the vicinity and the area's closed to the public, or because I've removed the cache to do some repairs at home, or because the hide is degraded or compromised in some way and I don't want the finders' experience spoiled. How else am I supposed to temporarily take a cache out of play other than by disabling it?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I would have thought that the reviewer ought to at least look at the logs that have been posted since the NM before deciding to take action, not just see the uncleared NM flag and automatically disable it. If that's the case, why do we even need a reviewer to do that? Why not just have the CHS automatically disable any cache it pings? I thought the whole purpose of having the reviewer take that step was so they could assess the cache and read the logs before making a reasoned decision.

 

I don't disagree.

But were you to take the situation to appeals, they would likely say that they err in favour of the reviewer having made a judgment call, rather than assuming ignorance, and then suggest that if you have evidence of the reviewer explicitly doing something against their rules which they can address, to return with it. In this case, again, the effect is negligible, relatively speaking, and with room for a judgment call that's granted to the reviewer, such that I wouldn't think the reviewer would be deemed to have done anything wrong.

 

I've already agreed that I think it would have been acceptable for a reviewer to grant an exception in this case, so you're preaching to the choir about that. But again, that's an exception, not an obligation, so I can't throw any stones at this reviewer for the decision they made (based on our assumed knowledge of the situation).

 

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Also, in the reviewer's TD log, he specifically says If you require more time please be sure to post a note (not an email) explaining the situation - this is exactly what the CO did a week after the NM but now you're saying that's wrong and he should have emailed the reviewer (something the reviewer has specifically said not to do).

 

If I went to the reviewer with that point, I'm 95% sure the response I'd get would be "then he should post the note after the TD, not before" on the basis that the TD started a new situation to deal with, or maybe "I'd be happy to work with the cache owner to have the listing re-enabled having a reasonable maintenance plan if they were to contact me".  But as it turns out, the CO opted to do the maintenance and have the listing re-instated instead. Win.

 

That said, on re-reading the reviewer note, I'm not sure I'm a fan of the wording. It implies the reviewer is now monitoring the cache listing actively (I would hope) for a public-facing note that's indirectly intended for the reviewer, while explicitly stating not to send an email, to resolve a situation that would be more favourably resolved ASAP.  The wording seems very stand-offish to me; as in it'll turn out to be more like, "the CO should not contact me directly, but post a note for community that I'll eventually get around to seeing and perhaps dealing with".  I don't know what that region's geocaching community "climate" is like, but perhaps the reviewer has reason to have formulated that canned TD note wording. Who knows.

 

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Whenever I've disabled one of my caches, it's because I don't want people going out looking for it.

 

Sure, likewise. But I know that just because it's disabled it won't stop people from ever looking for it. In practice, a disabled cache is just stronger warning to people not to find the cache.  I can't stop someone looking for a cache.  I can put all the attributes I want on it, but it's still available to be searched online and found by people.

When I'm searching for a cache, I make a judgment on a case by case scenario whether I think the cache is still findable or not.

As an owner, if I disable, I try to make the situation as clear as possible about the cache's findability, knowing that if it's there, people may still go to find it, despite how much I might request they don't. Of course I could lie and say I removed the container and hope no one calls my bluff. But even then I can't stop them from finding it online and attempting to find it at gz.  Disabling does not, in itself, "remove a cache from play"

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nothing "triggers" the reviewer action except the reviewer.

 

Semantics.  Something brought this cache to the attention of the reviewer, who decided to initiate action based on whatever it was - CHS or NM.  Good CHS and no NM, and no possible "trigger" pulled by the reviewer to initiate action.  I'm not saying those actions were wrong; I just think they were hastily done.

 

16 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Why are we discussing the CHS tool?

 

You brought it up when discussing the "low score state" in a response earlier in this thread, as it pertained to potential reviewer action based on this situation.  I made the assumption that you were referring to the CHS and not the NM.

 

15 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If I went to the reviewer with that point, I'm 95% sure the response I'd get would be "then he should post the note after the TD, not before" on the basis that the TD started a new situation to deal with,

 

Of course that's what the reviewer would say, but the CO knew that with the subsequent DNFs after a couple finds that the cache might be drawing some attention and proactively posted a note to head off possible reviewer intervention, stating the reason they thought it was still in play as well as a plan for a follow up visit.  This is the type of CO most people should emulate yet the reviewer still chose to disable the cache and wanted them to reply AFTER reviewer action.  That seems bass ackwards and contrary to what GS wants COs to be like.  "Don't proactively post something, should you feel that it might be warranted based on the logs of your cache, that reassures cachers that the cache is most likely there and that you'll check up on it when you're next in the area.  You need to wait until our reviewers initiate action on your cache to do those things."

 

If reviewers aren't going to take the time to read through some of the recent logs to make that judgment call that you continue to espouse, then remove the judgment and go straight to a disable when the CHS falls below the threshold.  Make it an automatic thing initiated by GS and take the reviewer out of it.  If you believe GS feels it's better to err on the side of them assuming something is wrong (vs. assuming nothing is wrong), then an automated disabling of a cache with a low CHS is a win/win situation, as it pertains to cache maintenance.  Conscientious COs will fix the cache and inactive or lax COs will allow it to be archived.  Either way GS gets what they want - a fixed up or verified check or a bad cache removed from the database.  Other than a little hassle to the COs, no harm no foul, right?

 

Personally, I would hate to see this happen but I believe, with the emphasis GS is placing on maintenance expectations considering the implementation of the CHS these past few years, the recent survey that addressed maintenance topics, and reviewer actions that appear to rely on the CHS rather than anything a CO might do on the cache page, that this is the way they might be heading.  I really hope that doesn't come to pass.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nothing "triggers" the reviewer action except the reviewer.

 

Semantics.  Something brought this cache to the attention of the reviewer, who decided to initiate action based on whatever it was - CHS or NM.  Good CHS and no NM, and no possible "trigger" pulled by the reviewer to initiate action.  I'm not saying those actions were wrong; I just think they were hastily done.

 

In this case semantics flavours the conversation, so it's important. The CHS isn't to blame for anything. The reviewer made the decision, whether making an informed decision or not or simply following due process.

 

10 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

You brought it up when discussing the "low score state" in a response earlier in this thread, as it pertained to potential reviewer action based on this situation.  I made the assumption that you were referring to the CHS and not the NM. 

 

No the CHS was mentioned in most posts between jeff's posted log history and my first comment on this strand.  I mentioned 'tool' first because the CHS on its own does absolutely nothing - there's no debating that. The issue was the reviewer taking action, which necessarily implies use of the CHS tool. Thus, no, the CHS is not to blame for the action that was taken by the reviewer by choice.  If the question is whether the cache should have even been brought to the reviewer's attention, that's a different discussion that goes back to how the score system weighs factors, than whether the reviewer should have given a longer grace period of requiring maintenance before disabling.

 

14 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Of course that's what the reviewer would say, but the CO knew that with the subsequent DNFs after a couple finds that the cache might be drawing some attention and proactively posted a note to head off possible reviewer intervention, stating the reason they thought it was still in play as well as a plan for a follow up visit.  This is the type of CO most people should emulate yet the reviewer still chose to disable the cache and wanted them to reply AFTER reviewer action.  That seems bass ackwards and contrary to what GS wants COs to be like.

 

Once again, I don't disagree. I've stated I think the wording is problematic, that I think the reviewer could have given a brief exception. I've also said I think the CO could have contacted the reviewer (after the NM was posted) rather than merely posting a note. I've also said I likely would have done just what this CO did. I also said I'm not surprised by the disabling, because there was an outstanding maintenance flag for 3 weeks (or 19 days), which for all I know may be the standard grace period.  We're arguing regional guidelines in which we don't belong (afaik) or know. We don't the reason why the reviewer disabled in this manner (canned response? anlyzed history? conscious decision? adhering to strict protocol?) There are many unknowns.

So I go back to the fact of the matter - the cache had a NM flag active for a long period, and the reviewer most likely had not been given a maintenance plan/schedule; whether the reviewer analyzed recent logs or not, they disabled it likely for that reason and that reason alone.  Disabling is not a world-ending action, as we know since it has been re-enabled easily enough.

 

This is proxy outrage. The situation is resolved. It's another once-off instance of reviewer action that most likely HQ wouldn't bat an eye at.  If I were the CO I might be slightly annoyed at the visibility of the situation and minor technicalities, but it's done, it's resolved, no loss, and I'd probably be having a drink with the reviewer at some point chuckling about how much stink was raised in the forum because of it all.  Then again I'm not this CO and don't know the reviewer, so.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

In this case semantics flavours the conversation, so it's important. The CHS isn't to blame for anything. The reviewer made the decision, whether making an informed decision or not or simply following due process.

Meh. I suppose I can't argue with you. CHS is a symptom of a wider change that has led to reviewers making these harsh decisions that wouldn't stand up to a second opinion. If you feel that strongly that "triggers" means something significantly different than "causes him to decide", I'll let you have your way.

 

Having said that, unlike you, I'm really hard pressed to believe that a reviewer would decide to disable that cache based on nothing except reading that log. I have to conclude that the impersonal, mechanical CHS was a required component in the reviewer's seemingly mindless action.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Meh. I suppose I can't argue with you. CHS is a symptom of a wider change that has led to reviewers making these harsh decisions that wouldn't stand up to a second opinion. If you feel that strongly that "triggers" means something significantly different than "causes him to decide", I'll let you have your way.

 

Nope. Doesn't even cause a reviewer to decide. At best, it presents the reviewer with a decision to be made which may or may not have come to their attention without the tool. That's it. Doesn't influence any decision they make. Not in the slightest.

 

5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Having said that, unlike you, I'm really hard pressed to believe that a reviewer would decide to disable that cache based on nothing except reading that log. I have to conclude that the impersonal, mechanical CHS was a required component in the reviewer's seemingly mindless action.

 

Well then yep, unlike me. If it's systematic, all reviewers would be doing so. That's not the case. This reviewer did, for whatever reason they chose to. it's a contained situation that's been resolved.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Nope. Doesn't even cause a reviewer to decide. At best, it presents the reviewer with a decision to be made which may or may not have come to their attention without the tool. That's it. Doesn't influence any decision they make. Not in the slightest.

 

The Cache Health Score helps to get caches in front of my eyes for further study, so it's a good thing.  Sometimes I will see a cache with a health score below the threshold, but I will not take any action (high difficulty, responsible owner, repeat DNF's from same cacher, etc. etc.).  Sometimes I will see a cache that's above the threshold for sending the automated email, and I do take action.  No algorithm is perfect and that works both ways.  These additional caches come to my attention by using the GSAK "Cache Cop" macro, or through "Needs Archived" logs.

 

The only "influence" from CHS is that I feel I'm on stronger ground when I want to disable a cache, knowing that a system-generated email was sent to the CO a week or more earlier, and no action has been taken.  At the margin, this can and does make me click the "disable" button.  I would likely have done so anyways, but now I am clicking with confidence.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I've also said I think the CO could have contacted the reviewer (after the NM was posted) rather than merely posting a note.

 

Until just the last few months, the reviewers here only stepped in after someone had logged an NA - an NM was just between the logger and the CO - so why would anyone even think to contact the reviewer after getting an NM? And looking forward, having seen that reviewer TD log that specifically says to post a WN outlining intended maintenance and NOT to email the reviewer, why would they even think to do that next time someone logs an NM on one of their caches? Is there anything in the guidelines or Help Centre that says to do that?

 

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

The only "influence" from CHS is that I feel I'm on stronger ground when I want to disable a cache, knowing that a system-generated email was sent to the CO a week or more earlier, and no action has been taken.

 

I'm surprised that a CO only gets a week's grace to respond to a CHS email before the reviewer becomes involved. Why is there so much haste to take action on caches that might be missing? Most COs have full-time jobs and families that have to take priority over going off into the wilds to check on a cache. And what if the weather over the weekend following the email or NM makes checking on the cache dangerous - thunderstorms, strong winds, extreme heat, or in other places blizzards? I always thought COs were given at least a month to respond to such things, but obviously I was wrong. This doesn't exactly encourage COs to place hides in remote places, does it? Seems P&Gs that can be checked at the drop of a hat in all weather are the way to go now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

And looking forward, having seen that reviewer TD log that specifically says to post a WN outlining intended maintenance and NOT to email the reviewer, why would they even think to do that next time someone logs an NM on one of their caches? Is there anything in the guidelines or Help Centre that says to do that?

 

Already said I think the wording could be better if the intent was not properly expressed, else it's very stand-offish. So I don't have an answer for that.

 

21 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I've also said I think the CO could have contacted the reviewer (after the NM was posted) rather than merely posting a note.

 

Until just the last few months, the reviewers here only stepped in after someone had logged an NA - an NM was just between the logger and the CO - so why would anyone even think to contact the reviewer after getting an NM?

 

Because they're being more proactive now that they have a tool to help them identify potential-problem caches quicker. Around here our reviewers are open to being contacted to respectfully and reasonably work things out if exceptions are desired and feasible.

Maybe the community landscape isn't that cordial in other regions. I don't know.

 

If I were the CO, and I had a cache with a NM flag on it, I know that the reviewer will step in eventually if I don't do anything about it. If I post a note, that might be enough for them, or maybe not. If I contact and communicate with them I stand a much better chance of getting a bit of an extension on my maintenance schedule.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

In response to barefootjeff's most recent post:

 

1.  Once a reviewer steps in and disables a cache, we always ask the CO to post updates on the cache page rather than contacting us by email.  This is true whether the disablement results from the Cache Health Score or otherwise.  The reason for this:  when we check back a month or so later,  the reviewer will likely not remember an email that the CO sent weeks earlier.  We look at the cache page for an update and, if there is none. the cache is archived.  So far this week, I've archived nearly 200 caches.  I cannot possibly search for emails from each of the CO's unless and until Signal the Frog gives me a raise.  It is the reviewer's action that triggers the need for the update log to the cache page - NOT the fact that a Needs Maintenance was logged.  In the ordinary course, absent reviewer involvement, the owner would respond (or not respond) to a Needs Maintenance log by posting an Owner Maintenance log.

 

2.  Please re-read my post that you quoted, focusing on the phrase "a week or more."  Reviewers do not check daily for caches that might require action.  I chose my words carefully.  If I become aware of a cache with maintenance issues, and I see that an automated health score notice was sent two days earlier, the most I would do would be to bookmark the cache for later follow-up.  I would give the CO a week or more to respond to the automated health score notice. 

 

3.  Once I do take action, by temporarily disabling a cache page, I allow a minimum of four weeks for the cache owner to respond.  THAT is when the CO is "given at least a month."  The word "haste" doesn't belong in the conversation.  For the nearly 200 caches that I archived this week, the temp disable logs were placed in early December.  I gave those CO's eight weeks, not four, in which to respond.  That's because of the busy holiday season and the winter weather.  There's been several days of good weather since then -- I know, because I went geocaching on some of those days -- so I can archive those caches with a clear conscience.  There were about 10 caches where the CO posted something, anything, indicating an intent to fix their cache.  Each of those caches escaped the reaper, and instead received a friendly "last call" reminder, thanking them for the update and asking them to fix their cache in the next three weeks.  Bear in mind, many of the 200 caches had DNF's extending back to last spring, last summer, and even back to 2017.  There was plenty of opportunity for the CO's to maintain their caches during good weather, prior to the allegedly hasty reviewer intervention.

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

And, not every reviewer is Keystone.

 

And, Keystone is not every reviewer. :o

 

But, Keystone might be a dog.

Share this post


Link to post

Every reviewer is mtn-man, and mtn-man is every reviewer.  Also, "woof."  (Side note: mtn-man's dog is the root origin of the phrase "many reviewers are dogs.")

 

But yeah, each reviewer is unique, and all do their best to follow the guidance given to us in the best interests of the local community and of Geocaching HQ.  In this regard, think of us like trial court judges.  Different judges can reach different conclusions based on similar facts - it's human nature.  That is why there are appellate courts.  In our game, Geocaching HQ is the appellate court.  When someone appeals one of my decisions, I am always happy for the guidance I receive.  Either I'm upheld on appeal - which lets me know I'm "doing it right" - or I am reversed on appeal - which empowers me to do a better job going forward.  I'm fine with being reversed, and I think any reviewer you ask would say the same thing.  After all, that means there's another cache to be found!

 

If anyone feels that their local reviewer is being too hasty or too harsh on a systematic basis, there is an appeals route for that.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Keystone said:

It is the reviewer's action that triggers the need for the update log to the cache page - NOT the fact that a Needs Maintenance was logged.  In the ordinary course, absent reviewer involvement, the owner would respond (or not respond) to a Needs Maintenance log by posting an Owner Maintenance log.

 

So what's the proper thing for a CO to do if they get an NM from an inexperienced cacher, when they're pretty sure the cache isn't missing so they don't want to disable it but they can't check on it for a few weeks? Should they:

  • Do nothing
  • Log a WN explaining the situation
  • Log an armchair OM to clear the NM flag even though they haven't yet physically checked on the cache
  • Do something else?

Which of these is the best course of action to follow in these circumstances to prevent the reviewer from stepping in and disabling the cache before the CO has a chance to go out and check on it, like what happened with the cache under discussion here? And what is an acceptable time frame for the CO to check on a cache after an NM has been logged?

 

24 minutes ago, Keystone said:

If I become aware of a cache with maintenance issues, and I see that an automated health score notice was sent two days earlier, the most I would do would be to bookmark the cache for later follow-up.  I would give the CO a week or more to respond to the automated health score notice. 

 

When a CO knows a CHS email was a false positive (perhaps the DNF logs gave reasons that had nothing to do with the cache health, like too many muggles nearby, bad weather or failing light) and doesn't want to disable or archive the cache (maybe one of those DNFers is keen to go back out and try again), but can't get out to the cache to physically check it and log an OM for a few weeks, what should they do to satisfy the reviewer who's looking at it a week later that they're on top of things?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nope. Doesn't even cause a reviewer to decide. At best, it presents the reviewer with a decision to be made which may or may not have come to their attention without the tool. That's it. Doesn't influence any decision they make. Not in the slightest.

If I now say, "OK, if you say so, I'll won't argue with you about whether 'cause a reviewer to decide' is significantly different than 'presents the reviewer with a decision to be made,'" will you say, "Nope. Doesn't even 'present the reviewer...'? :-)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Keystone said:

The Cache Health Score helps to get caches in front of my eyes for further study, so it's a good thing.  Sometimes I will see a cache with a health score below the threshold, but I will not take any action (high difficulty, responsible owner, repeat DNF's from same cacher, etc. etc.).  Sometimes I will see a cache that's above the threshold for sending the automated email, and I do take action.  No algorithm is perfect and that works both ways.  These additional caches come to my attention by using the GSAK "Cache Cop" macro, or through "Needs Archived" logs.

Would you have taken action based on a cache with the log presented by barefootjeff? The right decision is based on reading the logs, and you don't list that as something you do.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course I read the logs when deciding whether or not to take action against a cache.  Sorry if my prior posts omitted key details.  I thought they were a bit long-winded.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

If anyone feels that their local reviewer is being too hasty or too harsh on a systematic basis, there is an appeals route for that.

This isn't about reviewers making mistakes. It's about a procedure that requires reviewers to be ruthless because getting rid of bad caches is so important that nothing else matters.

 

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

For the nearly 200 caches that I archived this week, the temp disable logs were placed in early December. 

Out of curiosity, how does that 200 caches per week compare to the number of caches you'd archive a week before the CHS was invented? The reason I ask is that one would think that if the goal is to get rid of bad caches, you'd be archiving more caches every week. Are you? If so, I'm wondering why I'm still seeing the same ratio of caches with problem that I saw before the CHS days.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Of course I read the logs when deciding whether or not to take action against a cache.  Sorry if my prior posts omitted key details.  I thought they were a bit long-winded.

As I expected. I assume that means you would not have disabled that cache?

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, dprovan said:
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

If anyone feels that their local reviewer is being too hasty or too harsh on a systematic basis, there is an appeals route for that.

This isn't about reviewers making mistakes. It's about a procedure that requires reviewers to be ruthless because getting rid of bad caches is so important that nothing else matters.

 

3 hours ago, Keystone said:

For the nearly 200 caches that I archived this week, the temp disable logs were placed in early December. 

Out of curiosity, how does that 200 caches per week compare to the number of caches you'd archive a week before the CHS was invented? The reason I ask is that one would think that if the goal is to get rid of bad caches, you'd be archiving more caches every week. Are you? If so, I'm wondering why I'm still seeing the same ratio of caches with problem that I saw before the CHS days.

 

If a procedure required me to be ruthless, I wouldn't be happy volunteering my time.  Thank goodness, that isn't the case. 

 

On your second point, how did "this week" transmogrify into "every week?"  I don't do maintenance sweeps every week.  The last one I did was in early December.  I'll likely do my next one in mid-February.  So, I can't answer your question.  What I *can* say is that the number and percentage of caches with maintenance issues has risen by quite a lot in recent years in my review territory.  But, now I have better tools, such as the CHS, to help me deal with that listing guideline issue.  Yay, tools!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Keystone said:

What I *can* say is that the number and percentage of caches with maintenance issues has risen by quite a lot in recent years in my review territory

Likely due to phones and 'five minute' cachers, who to whom it seemed like a good idea...for five minutes; moving on now, and you're the one who couldn't know good coordinates; I was perfect. It's not 20 metres out; perfect. And that leaky mintie tin; best cache ever.

 

Sorry....🙃

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Likely due to phones and 'five minute' cachers, who to whom it seemed like a good idea...for five minutes; moving on now, and you're the one who couldn't know good coordinates; I was perfect. It's not 20 metres out; perfect. And that leaky mintie tin; best cache ever.

 

Sorry....🙃

 

And an increase in numbers-style, set-em-and-forget-em owners. The kind of owner that never intends to return to check or fix their caches. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nope. Doesn't even cause a reviewer to decide. At best, it presents the reviewer with a decision to be made which may or may not have come to their attention without the tool. That's it. Doesn't influence any decision they make. Not in the slightest.

If I now say, "OK, if you say so, I'll won't argue with you about whether 'cause a reviewer to decide' is significantly different than 'presents the reviewer with a decision to be made,'" will you say, "Nope. Doesn't even 'present the reviewer...'? 🙂

?

No, because I just said, it presents the reviewer with a decision... which is different than causes a reviewer to decide one way or another.

 

 

I can certainly see how an increase in caches that need maintenance can offset the speed at which caches that need maintenance are dealt with, such that the 'average' seems to be fairly unchanged.  That's an educated guess without having analyzed any official numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

Out of curiosity, how does that 200 caches per week compare to the number of caches you'd archive a week before the CHS was invented? The reason I ask is that one would think that if the goal is to get rid of bad caches, you'd be archiving more caches every week. Are you? If so, I'm wondering why I'm still seeing the same ratio of caches with problem that I saw before the CHS days.

 

I do a slightly different workflow than Keystone, but I average about 100 Archives a week for my area.  Before the advent of the CHS, it was probably slightly less, but probably not by much.  Perhaps the main reason for this, is the fact that prior to the CHS, we had a small group of individuals that were very active in either posting more NA's than they do now (I suspect they were utilizing GSAK/cache cop to do the sorting), or contacting me privately with a list of Archive candidates.  That activity has essentially dried up since the CHS has been active.

 

My apologies if you are still seeing problem caches in your area.  Taking a suggestion from our Reviewing friends up North, I've recently started to scan through the Listings with active NM Attributes.  I just finished up a PQ for your area, and on the first page alone, the radius was out more than 30 miles for active NM's, which doesn't sound all that bad to me for a densely populated urban area.  Still, some things can fly under the radar for quite some time without any action (it's amazing what people will tolerate).  If you have any specific Listings in mind, feel free to contact me privately with your concerns.

Share this post


Link to post

Since Keystone already replied to other postings after this question I repeat it here because I think this is a key question:

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

When a CO knows a CHS email was a false positive (perhaps the DNF logs gave reasons that had nothing to do with the cache health, like too many muggles nearby, bad weather or failing light) and doesn't want to disable or archive the cache (maybe one of those DNFers is keen to go back out and try again), but can't get out to the cache to physically check it and log an OM for a few weeks, what should they do to satisfy the reviewer who's looking at it a week later that they're on top of things?

Personally (since I like transparency and like to demonstrate to everybody that I'm active and I'm monitoring my listings) I would simply post a note laying out that I received this automatic mail and what I think about it. I might announce a visit but depending on time of the year this could be months ahead.

If this is not enough for the reviewer I expect being able to enter a constructive discussion with him/her and If this discussion is started with an *individual* TempDisable log by the reviewer I would not take it personally.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

When a CO knows a CHS email was a false positive (perhaps the DNF logs gave reasons that had nothing to do with the cache health, like too many muggles nearby, bad weather or failing light) and doesn't want to disable or archive the cache (maybe one of those DNFers is keen to go back out and try again), but can't get out to the cache to physically check it and log an OM for a few weeks, what should they do to satisfy the reviewer who's looking at it a week later that they're on top of things?

 

Communicate the facts to the reviewer, then ask what else the reviewer is looking for.  Reviewers are not one size fits all.  Responses to them shouldn't be, either.  But an initial communication of what's going on and what the CO intends to do next is probably helpful across the board.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Hynz said:
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

When a CO knows a CHS email was a false positive (perhaps the DNF logs gave reasons that had nothing to do with the cache health, like too many muggles nearby, bad weather or failing light) and doesn't want to disable or archive the cache (maybe one of those DNFers is keen to go back out and try again), but can't get out to the cache to physically check it and log an OM for a few weeks, what should they do to satisfy the reviewer who's looking at it a week later that they're on top of things?

Personally (since I like transparency and like to demonstrate to everybody that I'm active and I'm monitoring my listings) I would simply post a note laying out that I received this automatic mail and what I think about it. I might announce a visit but depending on time of the year this could be months ahead.

If this is not enough for the reviewer I expect being able to enter a constructive discussion with him/her and If this discussion is started with an *individual* TempDisable log by the reviewer I would not take it personally.

I'd be surprised if there was a temp disable by a reviewer, alerted by the CHS, without a prior NM being posted. If there was, I'd think the reviewer was jumping the gun.  But I wouldn't be surprised if after a few DNFs and a reviewer judged there might be an issue that they posted a note or sent a private nudge after an arbitrary grace period - not a disable.  If there was a NM, then I wouldn't be surprised if there was a TD (whether they were alerted by the tool or not).

 

This is the general conceptual process I might see and experience in my area (each arrow is an arbitrary period of time):

DNFs/lowscore -> Reviewer nudge

DNFs/lowscore -> NM -> Reviewer disable

NM -> Owner note -> Reviewer disable

*NM -> OM -> NM -> Owner note -> Reviewer disable

DNFs/lowscore -> Owner note -> Reviewer nudge

DNFs/lowscore -> Reviewer nudge -> Reviewer NM or disable -> Possible reviewer nudge -> Reviewer archive

DNFs/lowscore -> NM -> NA -> Reviewer archive ... Owner contact -> Reviewer unarchive -> OM + Enable

DNFs/lowscore -> NM -> Reviewer disable -> Owner enable -> Reviewer disable -> Owner enable -> Reviewer archive

NM -> Owner disable -> Reviewer nudge -> Owner note -> Reviewer nudge -> Owner note -> Reviewer nudge -> etc... :ph34r:

 

* This is the situation posted by jeff. The disable typically comes because of an outstanding maintenance flag, regardless of what comes before. OM needs to be posted to clear it. If it remains, a reviewer may not disable the listing if they choose, but the standard process is disabling if the flag remains unaddressed for a long time.

 

You can sense the progression in that list. There's a standard order, with some exceptions either granted or in consequence depending on reviewer judgment.

Again, that's some examples of how things might work in my region.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd be surprised if there was a temp disable by a reviewer, alerted by the CHS, without a prior NM being posted. If there was, I'd think the reviewer was jumping the gun.  But I wouldn't be surprised if after a few DNFs and a reviewer judged there might be an issue that they posted a note or sent a private nudge after an arbitrary grace period - not a disable.  If there was a NM, then I wouldn't be surprised if there was a TD (whether they were alerted by the tool or not).

 

Going through the recent batch of TDs by our reviewer, there are a couple that look to have arisen just from a string of DNFs (GC61K94 with 6 DNFs since the last find in Nov 18, and GC5CXWJ with 6 DNFs since the last find in July 18). While they do have one or two outstanding NMs, they are historic, going back a couple of years, and unrelated to the string of DNFs - on the first one there were two NMs in 2017 for a full log and on the second, the only NM goes back to 2016 and was for dampness. I've also never seen our reviewer post a nudge note, the TD is always his first step when becoming involved - and, as I mentioned earlier, prior to a few months back, as best I can tell, he only became involved after someone posted an NA.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 12:14 PM, thebruce0 said:
On 1/29/2019 at 11:50 AM, barefootjeff said:

And looking forward, having seen that reviewer TD log that specifically says to post a WN outlining intended maintenance and NOT to email the reviewer, why would they even think to do that next time someone logs an NM on one of their caches? Is there anything in the guidelines or Help Centre that says to do that?

Already said I think the wording could be better if the intent was not properly expressed, else it's very stand-offish. So I don't have an answer for that.

Looking at canned 'Temp Disable' logs from 5 different Reviewers (all in the USA) - 3 ask the CO to post a note to the cache page and to not use email/MC, while the other 2 just asks the CO to "respond".

 

13 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd be surprised if there was a temp disable by a reviewer, alerted by the CHS, without a prior NM being posted. If there was, I'd think the reviewer was jumping the gun.  But I wouldn't be surprised if after a few DNFs and a reviewer judged there might be an issue that they posted a note or sent a private nudge after an arbitrary grace period - not a disable.  If there was a NM, then I wouldn't be surprised if there was a TD (whether they were alerted by the tool or not).

Saw one that looked like the following - there was no NM attribute on the cache:

10/28  (Reviewer) - Archive
09/28 (Reviewer) - Temp Disable
09/25 (Cacher4, 60 finds) - DNF
08/28 (Cacher3, 7 finds) - DNF
08/25 (Cacher2, 2 finds) - DNF
08/14 (Cacher1, 3000+ finds) - DNF
July - Finds from 6 different cachers
May - Finds from 3 different cachers
Back 3 years (where I stopped scrolling) - Finds, with a few intermittent DNF's

 

And another:

07/18 (Reviewer) - Archive
06/11 (Reviewer) - Temp Disable
05/27 (Cacher4, 2500+ finds) - DNF
04/30 (Cacher3, 380 finds) - DNF
04/30 (Cacher2, 100 finds) - DNF
04/16 (Cacher1, 3800+ finds) - DNF
April - Finds from 4 different cachers
March - Finds from 3 different cachers
Back 2 years (where I stopped scrolling) - Finds, with no DNF's

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 3:36 PM, Keystone said:

What I *can* say is that the number and percentage of caches with maintenance issues has risen by quite a lot in recent years in my review territory.

OK, well at least that would be something. So how do you support saying that? How do you define "maintenance issue"? You seem to suggest it's still rising. Is that true?

 

On 1/29/2019 at 3:36 PM, Keystone said:

On your second point, how did "this week" transmogrify into "every week?"

I'm not sure why your note takes on this negative tone. You make it sound like I was putting words in your mouth. And, honestly, complaining about this is quite a hair to split. Week, month, year, it's all irrelevant to the question of what your sense is of how many caches you archive per unit time compared to how many your archived back when almost all of them were brought to your attention by NA logs and you didn't need tools like CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/29/2019 at 7:31 PM, Nomex said:

I do a slightly different workflow than Keystone, but I average about 100 Archives a week for my area.  Before the advent of the CHS, it was probably slightly less, but probably not by much.  Perhaps the main reason for this, is the fact that prior to the CHS, we had a small group of individuals that were very active in either posting more NA's than they do now (I suspect they were utilizing GSAK/cache cop to do the sorting), or contacting me privately with a list of Archive candidates.  That activity has essentially dried up since the CHS has been active.

Yes, my sense is that the numbers haven't changed. All that's changed is seekers are no longer engaged in the process, just as you describe. I think that's a shame. Doesn't that make it harder for you to find those caches? Before, people just pointed them out to you. Now you have to run tools to track them down. Not to mention that makes you the bad guy for every single cache you archive now, where before you were just a force of nature archiving caches someone else flagged as having a problem.

 

On 1/29/2019 at 7:31 PM, Nomex said:

My apologies if you are still seeing problem caches in your area.

Me?! My whole point is that the number of problem caches in my area is as low as possible, being about what I'd expect from reasonably good COs vs. the natural course of events. I've never had a complaint about the job you're doing.

 

Although I am a little stunned by how you word that: "if you are still seeing problem caches." Well, of course, everyone is always going to see problem caches. The question is whether we're seeing too many problem caches. I'm sure you didn't really mean to put it that way, but, at the same time, it sometimes seems as if GS has the unachievable and irrational goal of making sure no seeker ever sees problem caches.

 

On 1/29/2019 at 7:31 PM, Nomex said:

Taking a suggestion from our Reviewing friends up North, I've recently started to scan through the Listings with active NM Attributes.  I just finished up a PQ for your area, and on the first page alone, the radius was out more than 30 miles for active NM's, which doesn't sound all that bad to me for a densely populated urban area.  Still, some things can fly under the radar for quite some time without any action (it's amazing what people will tolerate).  If you have any specific Listings in mind, feel free to contact me privately with your concerns.

Unresolved NMs are one of the least important problem in geocaching. In my experience, being flagged with an NM is not a very good indication of whether a cache is a problem cache. Furthermore, many NM flags merely indicate the normal course of events: a seeker found a problem and filed an NM, and the CO will now go deal with it. I don't see a particular advantage for you paying much attention to them. I've noticed that the whole "bad cache" crusade is often supported by counting NM flags, but NM flags are the sign of a healthy more than they're a count of "bad caches".

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd be surprised if there was a temp disable by a reviewer, alerted by the CHS, without a prior NM being posted.

Really? I guess things are going differently in different areas. I'm starting to see reviewer action based on nothing but DNFs regularly. But that might be because there's chicken and egg problem: my impression is also that it's becoming rarer for seekers to post NMs to suggest a cache is missing. I think a lot of people now feel that it's the reviewer's job to identify missing caches. Declaring that a cache is missing is always a conjecture and can always be a mistake, so I think more and more seekers feel like possibly being wrong is not a responsibility they're willing to take on.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Really? I guess things are going differently in different areas. I'm starting to see reviewer action based on nothing but DNFs regularly. But that might be because there's chicken and egg problem: my impression is also that it's becoming rarer for seekers to post NMs to suggest a cache is missing. I think a lot of people now feel that it's the reviewer's job to identify missing caches. Declaring that a cache is missing is always a conjecture and can always be a mistake, so I think more and more seekers feel like possibly being wrong is not a responsibility they're willing to take on.

 

Yes, and this is being reinforced by cases like the one I presented earlier where it seems NMs that aren't immediately acted upon (with either an OM or a TD by the owner) are now being treated as if they were NAs. Having seen that happen in my own backyard now makes me reluctant to log an NM unless it's for something I'd follow up with an NA if it's not resolved. An NM for a full log, a bit of water ingress during a flood, broken camo or a possibly missing cache based on a few DNFs really doesn't require archival even if the CO doesn't fly into action right away.

 

Things have certainly changed here. It used to be our reviewer wouldn't accept an NA unless there'd been an NM logged at least a month earlier with no response from the CO, yet now he's stepping in and effectively NAing them after less than three weeks even when the owner has responded.

 

Perhaps I need to rethink my use of DNF logs too. On Tuesday I attempted a new D2/T3 multi near here, but messed up a waypoint calculation, ended up searching in the wrong location and logged a DNF. A second searcher got the waypoints right but found the terrain at GZ a bit too much for him so also logged a DNF. After a bit of collaboration with the CO and that second searcher, I solved my waypoint error and went back for another look on Wednesday, but either missed something obvious (quite likely for this Blind Freddy) or it was too much of a needle in a haystack for me and I ended up logging another DNF. So with three DNFs in a row and no finds yet, I suppose the CHS will soon be raising its eyebrows if it hasn't already done so, yet I doubt there's anything wrong with the cache apart from being a bit hard to find for us old guys. The trouble is us old guys are about the only active cachers left in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:
On 1/30/2019 at 9:36 AM, thebruce0 said:

I'd be surprised if there was a temp disable by a reviewer, alerted by the CHS, without a prior NM being posted.

Really? I guess things are going differently in different areas. I'm starting to see reviewer action based on nothing but DNFs regularly. But that might be because there's chicken and egg problem: my impression is also that it's becoming rarer for seekers to post NMs to suggest a cache is missing. I think a lot of people now feel that it's the reviewer's job to identify missing caches.

 

Since reviewers don't seem to be telling us that it's their "job" to identify missing caches, but that they are still, repeatedly, doing sweeps and using the tool which they appreciate in order to help them identify potential problem caches, it's essentially conjecture. I also think NMs are being posted less regularly. But if a cache gets a TD - whether or not there was a NM - it's because a reviewer judged for themselves that it was warranted. I can't argue across the board whether that's right or wrong - I don't know the details, and my judgment may or may not match the reviewer's on a case by case basis.

 

The problem y'all seem to be having is about this reviewer's personal judgment of the cache's state.  And I never disagreed with the idea that the cache didn't need to be disabled. I'm only arguing that it didn't happen because of the CHS, or the reviewer's tool.  It happened because the reviewer decided to make it happen.  And it was resolved, probably exactly as the reviewer had hoped it would: the CO personally verified that the cache was findable and re-enabled it and cleared the flag so the public can be reassured that it's good to go.  Absolutely there could have been less angst and far fewer forum posts if the reviewer had judged a little more loosely and given a bit longer of a grace period, but at this point that's beside the point.

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Things have certainly changed here. It used to be our reviewer wouldn't accept an NA unless there'd been an NM logged at least a month earlier with no response from the CO, yet now he's stepping in and effectively NAing them after less than three weeks even when the owner has responded.

 

How does a reviewer "NA" (verb) a cache? Your reviewer is posting a NA on the cache?  Because a TD can, and has always come, after a NM, NA, or really any reason whatsoever if a reviewer feels it's warranted.  The effect of a NA has always been only a higher priority visibility to a reviewer (ie, the 'needs reviewer attention' argument). The intended use of a NA is to highlight a very essential and more immediate concern that could warrant an immediate archival by a reviewer, but I think more often than not it's an overrated concern that the reviewer clears up with the CO without an archival.  If a cache gets disabled by a reviewer that not a step only reserved for the "NA" process.

 

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So with three DNFs in a row and no finds yet, I suppose the CHS will soon be raising its eyebrows if it hasn't already done so, yet I doubt there's anything wrong with the cache apart from being a bit hard to find for us old guys.

 

Yep, the CHS may well get a bit of a bump from that. But as reviewers have continually expressed, they may not take action if they can see that past logs are clear that they're due to user error, not cache error.  If you point to the posted example above, remember the reviewer didn't step in until there was an outstanding NM which the CO didn't clear after 19 days (even though posting a note which we agree could have affected the reviewer's judgment differently).

 

Could a reviewer step in and disable a cache with a string of DNFs? Sure, that's always been a possibility. I've seen it occasionally too. Extremely rarely, but it's happened. (Yes, I said "I'd be surprised if" - and I still stand by that).  And in those cases from what I've seen (ie in my area) it's been something like 20 DNFs on higher DTs, and most likely the reviewer was thinking there might just be a problem, especially given the DNF log contents. Heck, with 'Do You Like Gardening' a local Trad which went 5 years without a find and constant DNFing, the CO had to repeatedly head out to gz to verify the cache was still available to be found - whether he posted an OM or a Note wasn't important. The log history showed that the CO was active and watching and making sure it was available, so the reviewer never stepped in to disable it (and no one ever posted a NM). (Though there was one instance of an..'enthusiastic' cacher who posted a NA, because of all the prior DNFs despite the CO regularly verifying its existence, which was immediately cleared)

 

It's still all about how the reviewer interprets a cache's state, whether they used the CHS tool or not.  And if we don't like a decision, it's not because of anything but the individual reviewer's judgment.

 

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

GC61K94

 

10 hides. 5 with red wrenches.

2 archived caches, archived by a reviewer.

One archived cache has an OM (instead of a disable) saying there's a fence around it, it appears to still be there, he will update once the fences comes down. He never updated. 

5 caches in disable mode. Disabled by reviewer. No response from the CO. 

 

Quote

 I've also never seen our reviewer post a nudge note.

 

What's the point of a nudge note.  It only delays the inevitable.  This CO has a proven track record of not fixing his caches. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The problem y'all seem to be having is about this reviewer's personal judgment of the cache's state

I'm disappointed I haven't been able to explain my point well enough that you think it has anything to do with this. I don't have any problem with the reviewer properly performing his task according to the new world order. My problem is that it's now the reviewer's job. This is an example of why that's a problem. First, the CHS encourages a quick decision based on an algorithm. Second, there's no second opinion. The reviewer is both police and executioner. When cache monitoring was based on NAs, a seeker had to make the case for archival, and the reviewer was an impartial second opinion between the accusation and the execution.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Since reviewers don't seem to be telling us that it's their "job" to identify missing caches, but that they are still, repeatedly, doing sweeps and using the tool which they appreciate in order to help them identify potential problem caches, it's essentially conjecture.

Certainly I agree that there's plenty of room for conjecture about exactly what they're being told to do, but, seriously, you can't possibly question that it's now their job to identify missing caches. That's why Keystone is so jubilant about having the CHS and keeps holding it up as a great tool: he needs it to do his job. Before this nonsense about cache quality going to heck in a handbasket became credo, he just had to sit around and wait for people to post NAs to learn which caches seemed to be missing.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's still all about how the reviewer interprets a cache's state, whether they used the CHS tool or not.  And if we don't like a decision, it's not because of anything but the individual reviewer's judgment.

Whether a cache should be archived has always been the reviewer's judgement. What's different in the CHS age is that now the reviewer is also judging whether the cache is bad. Before this switch to reviewer-centric quality monitoring, the system forced someone else to judge that a cache needed to be archived. The reviewer then acted as an impartial arbitrator and decided whether the allegation should be acted upon.

 

But, nooooo, how dare they make us seekers step up and take any responsibility for interacting with COs to maintain the quality of the caches in our area. Obviously some remote and impersonal reviewer should be the bad guy.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But, nooooo, how dare they make us seekers step up and take any responsibility for interacting with COs to maintain the quality of the caches in our area. Obviously some remote and impersonal reviewer should be the bad guy.

 

Presumably because it wasn’t working.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, dprovan said:
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The problem y'all seem to be having is about this reviewer's personal judgment of the cache's state

I'm disappointed I haven't been able to explain my point well enough that you think it has anything to do with this. I don't have any problem with the reviewer properly performing his task according to the new world order. My problem is that it's now the reviewer's job.

 

Okay, what exactly is the reviewer's job you're referring to?  If it's to look at a listing and make a decision about what to do, then yes, I agree. If you think it's specifically to disable a cache after a few DNFs, then no. I'm guessing you don't think it's the latter, so I'm not sure what you're ascribing to reviewers as a requirement as part of their job.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

First, the CHS encourages a quick decision based on an algorithm.

Where does it say "quick"?

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Second, there's no second opinion.

There never was before.  And there's always been appeals.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The reviewer is both police and executioner.

They've always been the first highest authority above cache owners, and next lowest below HQ.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

When cache monitoring was based on NAs

It was never only based on NAs. NAs only bumped visibility and priority. Reviewers always had the ability and option to perform sweeps of their regions to find potentially problematic caches.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

seriously, you can't possibly question that it's now their job to identify missing caches

Sure I can. I'm 100% confident no reviewer will admit that their job is to identify missing caches.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

That's why Keystone is so jubilant about having the CHS and keeps holding it up as a great tool: he needs it to do his job.

No, he can use it to make his job easier.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Before this nonsense about cache quality going to heck in a handbasket became credo, he just had to sit around and wait for people to post NAs to learn which caches seemed to be missing.

Well I know for fact my reviewers never sat around waiting for NAs. So that's frankly an objectively and demonstrably ridiculous claim, and I think you know it. (And I'd go so far as to say that any reviewer who did that (or used to do that) shouldn't be a reviewer)

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Whether a cache should be archived has always been the reviewer's judgement. What's different in the CHS age is that now the reviewer is also judging whether the cache is bad.

With that I'll (mostly) agree. I'd adjust it by saying that a reviewer is judging whether the cache is potentially bad thus a CO should prioritize verifying its good condition; the identification of such listings made easier by the existence of the CHS tool.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

the system forced someone else to judge that a cache needed to be archived.

"The system" never forced anyone to do anything. A reviewer could step in at any time. A person could claim that a cache needed archiving but it was always a proposal put before the reviewer to judge. No one was ever forced to do anything.

 

52 minutes ago, dprovan said:

But, nooooo, how dare they make us seekers step up and take any responsibility for interacting with COs to maintain the quality of the caches in our area.

You, we, can still do that. And you, we, should still do that.  Nothing there has changed. The sky is not falling.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

Presumably because it wasn’t working.

You mean because people thought it wasn't working, don't you? I don't think CHS is working any better, but I think it has several bad side effects that are making things in general worse while not, as far as I've seen, solving "the problem".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Okay, what exactly is the reviewer's job you're referring to?  If it's to look at a listing and make a decision about what to do, then yes, I agree. If you think it's specifically to disable a cache after a few DNFs, then no. I'm guessing you don't think it's the latter, so I'm not sure what you're ascribing to reviewers as a requirement as part of their job.

The job I'm referring to is the reviewer being the sole identifier of caches which should be removed from the lists. In my area, at least, it's become clear that my reviewer is acting that way and that it does, in fact, include deciding that a cache is missing based on DNFs. Naturally I have no idea whether it's in the job description, but it's obviously something many reviewers are doing and, more to the point, many geocachers have decided that reviewers are responsible for it.

 

8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Where does it say "quick"?

The more accurate way to say "there are too many bad caches" is "bad caches are not getting archived fast enough". The very nature of the problem statement demands a solution that archives bad caches more quickly. This is both reflected in and exacerbated by the CHS, which gives a simple good/bad determination that a reviewer accepts or rejects with some unknown amount of consideration. In the cache we're discussing, it appears the reviewer took the CHS at face value because the log clearly shows that there's not yet any reason to think the cache has a problem, yet the cache was disabled. In other words, the reviewer acted too quickly before there was sufficient evidence that action was necessary. It [i[is[/i] quick. I'm not much interested in whether something somewhere says "quick".

 

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

Second, there's no second opinion.

There never was before.  And there's always been appeals.

I'm not sure why you don't understand this. It used to be that a seeker filed an NA, then the reviewer provided a second opinion. You don't see the difference between that and the reviewer deciding all by himself?

 

Yes, of course, there's always been and continues to be an optional additional opinion by appealing to GS. But even that's radically different now. Appeals used to be an evaluation of the reviewer's impartial arbitration between the seeker and the CO. Now the appeal process itself has to address the question of whether the cache is good or bad. Furthermore, because in the old days the reviewer acted as arbiter rather than instigator, the goal was impartial rulings. An appeal might overturn a reviewer's decision, but the ruling was about whether the seeker's NA should be supported or not. Now, if an appeal overturns a reviewer, it's specifically saying the reviewer was wrong. There's every reason to think that appeals will shy away from ruling against their own agent.

 

24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure I can. I'm 100% confident no reviewer will admit that their job is to identify missing caches.

I wish they'd act like it.

 

25 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Well I know for fact my reviewers never sat around waiting for NAs.

Must be another local difference, then. In my area, it used to be unusual and quite remarkable when an reviewer disabled a cache before an NA was posted. You're saying that in your area, they jumped in all the time without anyone flagging a problem for their attention? I can see why you thought there was a problem, but I don't see why you didn't think encouraging people to file NAs wasn't the better solution.

 

29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

So that's frankly an objectively and demonstrably ridiculous claim, and I think you know it.

I'm just reporting what I saw in the logs for the first 5 years I was geocaching. I got no sense that the reviewers had to seek out problems because they were almost always reported to them through NAs. If reviewers were secretly working feverishly looking for problems, I don't know why. There weren't that many unflagged problems to find without actually going out physically and looking at GZ.

 

35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

But, nooooo, how dare they make us seekers step up and take any responsibility for interacting with COs to maintain the quality of the caches in our area.

You, we, can still do that. And you, we, should still do that.  Nothing there has changed. The sky is not falling.

Don't lecture me. I still do post NMs and NAs. The problem is that no one else does, even the people that used to do it as regularly as I do, the ones I watched to learn how to do it. That's because the system has changed to discourage them, not because of some lack of personal motivation.

 

I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm saying things are worse. And I point to specific examples and trend and even discuss why I think it's happening. The people that said "OMG, too many bad caches!!!" were saying the sky is falling when it wasn't and offered only dubious anecdotal evidence, yet GS completely revamped the way we detect bad caches anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

Presumably because it wasn’t working.

 

I've been fortunate enough to cache in quite a few states and countries and I haven't noticed an increase (or a decrease) in poorly maintained caches.  In over 8 years of caching, the percentage of caches that were in rough shape and probably needed some sort of maintenance was, and is still, roughly 10%.  What wasn't working?  I haven't seen an uptick in better maintained caches so I claim that in this day and age of the CHS, it is just as "ineffective" as the old method that allowed reviewers to react to community provided feedback before taking action.  That doesn't mean the CHS is a bad idea; it's just not been effective (based on the caches I've found) at doing what it was created to address.

 

58 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Second, there's no second opinion.

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

There never was before.

 

 

What?  The second opinion was the reviewer's opinion.  The first opinion was the NM or NA log from the cacher who filed it.  They filed it because they deemed, in their opinion, that enough was wrong with the cache to file the appropriate log and draw the attention of the CO or reviewer.  If the CO didn't respond, the reviewer then used the opinion of the cacher to help determine their opinion of what to do about the cache in question.  If your argument is that there's no second opinion regarding reviewer action, well of course not.  That's not the point he was raising.  If that cacher had NEVER filed the NM or NA log, that cache wouldn't have come to the reviewer's attention.  Do you believe reviewers had all that free time to go looking for problem caches that had no problems listed?  Apparently so, as below shows.

 

16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Reviewers always had the ability and option to perform sweeps of their regions to find potentially problematic caches.

 

How would they know they were problematic without NM or NA logs?  DNF logs?  That's great but they would then have to look at the D/T of the cache as well to help make that decision.  How much free time do you think they wanted to spend doing that?  I can't think of any reviewer action on "potentially problematic caches" until the CHS was implemented.  NM logs, yes.  NA logs, yes.  However, in those situations potential problems were already identified by a cacher filing the appropriate log, not the reviewer proactively taking the time to identify potentially problematic caches.  

 

23 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, he can use it to make his job easier.

 

They either can or cannot.  It's obviously not cannot because that means they aren't allowed to use it.  So can means they either will or will not use it to make their job easier.  Are you conjecturing that there are times they won't even look at it when making a decision about a cache that's drawn their attention?  I'll give you that's the case regarding a NA log, but I would think that every other reason would include using the CHS as part of their decision making process.  I would think that they would ALWAYS use it to help make their job easier, even if the information it provides warrants them NOT taking action.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Presumably because it wasn’t working.

You mean because people thought it wasn't working, don't you? I don't think CHS is working any better, but I think it has several bad side effects that are making things in general worse while not, as far as I've seen, solving "the problem".

 

12 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, IceColdUK said:

Presumably because it wasn’t working.

 

I've been fortunate enough to cache in quite a few states and countries and I haven't noticed an increase (or a decrease) in poorly maintained caches.  In over 8 years of caching, the percentage of caches that were in rough shape and probably needed some sort of maintenance was, and is still, roughly 10%.  What wasn't working?

 

I'm just assuming enough people had - or perceived - problems for Groundspeak to spend their time and money developing the CHS.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Things have certainly changed here. It used to be our reviewer wouldn't accept an NA unless there'd been an NM logged at least a month earlier with no response from the CO, yet now he's stepping in and effectively NAing them after less than three weeks even when the owner has responded.

 

How does a reviewer "NA" (verb) a cache? Your reviewer is posting a NA on the cache?  Because a TD can, and has always come, after a NM, NA, or really any reason whatsoever if a reviewer feels it's warranted.  The effect of a NA has always been only a higher priority visibility to a reviewer (ie, the 'needs reviewer attention' argument). The intended use of a NA is to highlight a very essential and more immediate concern that could warrant an immediate archival by a reviewer, but I think more often than not it's an overrated concern that the reviewer clears up with the CO without an archival.  If a cache gets disabled by a reviewer that not a step only reserved for the "NA" process.

 

I said "effectively NAing", which means doing the same thing that an NA would have done. What you describe might be how it works in your area, but it's not universal. As I said before, prior to just a few months back I'd never seen a reviewer TD a cache here unless someone had logged an NA on it. The reviewers didn't act on NMs - NMs were just a heads-up to the CO. If you wanted the reviewer to become involved you had to log an NA. And conversely, the reviewer wouldn't accept an NA for a missing/decrepit cache unless there was already an NM that the CO hadn't responded to after at least a month had passed. The sequence was always NM logged - a month or more with no owner response - NA logged - Reviewer TD - another month with no owner response - Reviewer Archive.

 

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Could a reviewer step in and disable a cache with a string of DNFs? Sure, that's always been a possibility. I've seen it occasionally too. Extremely rarely, but it's happened. (Yes, I said "I'd be surprised if" - and I still stand by that).  And in those cases from what I've seen (ie in my area) it's been something like 20 DNFs on higher DTs, and most likely the reviewer was thinking there might just be a problem, especially given the DNF log contents.

 

Those two examples I quoted (GC61K94 with 6 DNFs since the last find in Nov 18, and GC5CXWJ with 6 DNFs since the last find in July 18) were disabled by the reviewer from just a string of DNFs, and those two were just from the batch of twelve TDs the reviewer posted on the 24th of January. So it's not just a possibility, it happened twice in the one batch of TDs. And I suspect it's likely to happen with that new multi that currently has 3 DNFs and no finds.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dprovan said:

The job I'm referring to is the reviewer being the sole identifier of caches which should be removed from the lists. In my area, at least, it's become clear that my reviewer is acting that way and that it does, in fact, include deciding that a cache is missing based on DNFs. Naturally I have no idea whether it's in the job description, but it's obviously something many reviewers are doing and, more to the point, many geocachers have decided that reviewers are responsible for it.

 

In what way are they "deciding that a cache is missing"?  (note: Asking a CO to check on it via some action is not "deciding that a cache is missing")

 

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Where does it say "quick"?

The more accurate way to say "there are too many bad caches" is "bad caches are not getting archived fast enough". The very nature of the problem statement demands a solution that archives bad caches more quickly. This is both reflected in and exacerbated by the CHS, which gives a simple good/bad determination that a reviewer accepts or rejects with some unknown amount of consideration. In the cache we're discussing, it appears the reviewer took the CHS at face value because the log clearly shows that there's not yet any reason to think the cache has a problem, yet the cache was disabled. In other words, the reviewer acted too quickly before there was sufficient evidence that action was necessary. It [i[is[/i] quick. I'm not much interested in whether something somewhere says "quick".

 

Again, more specifically as you said, where does the "CHS encourage a quick decision based on an algorithm"?

The CHS tool merely highlights a listing to the reviewer. That's it. The reviewer decides on the timeline for when and how it should be dealt with. The reviewer. Not the tool.  "Quick" is inferred, not implied.

Yes, HQ's desire is to make the job easier (and thus indirectly, quicker) for reviewers to do their job in addressing potential problem caches so the ones that are problematic either get dealt with quicker, or the ones that could be problematic are addressed before they become so, or inactive or irresponsible cache owners are identified before their caches become bad experiences for people finding them. Indirectly, HQ has a desire to see better experiences in general for the community, by addressing bad ones quicker.  The CHS tool aids reviewers in doing their job in order to make this goal more feasible. There is no push to do things faster. Timelines are still reviewers' decisions. I don't know if HQ mandates some minimum timeframe, worldwide, for all reviewers' regional guidelines to adhere to. I find that unlikely. But if so, then perhaps there is an increased push for speed if every reviewer's guidelines have a newly reduced recommended timeframe.

 

Otherwise, no, speed of addressing issues per cache is still entirely reviewer judgment. But now more caches can be addressed in the same amount of time. If that is what you mean by "a solution that archives bad caches more quickly", then yes. And I have zero problem with that goal. And I don't think anyone at HQ or any reviewer would either. I'd be surprised if you found that a majority of the community would disagree as well.  If you do, well, I guess that's too bad then.

 

9 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Second, there's no second opinion.

There never was before.  And there's always been appeals.

I'm not sure why you don't understand this. It used to be that a seeker filed an NA, then the reviewer provided a second opinion. You don't see the difference between that and the reviewer deciding all by himself?

 

Nope, because it doesn't matter what the seeker does or says, the reviewer still makes the final decision - a decision they could make whether there was a NA filed or not. NA is entirely irrelevant to the discussion about ignored NM and the example cache posted above.  I would assume if the seeker had posted a NA, the CO may have made a higher priority of visiting the cache before the reviewer might have jumped in quicker. Who knows. The point is, the reviewer addressed an outstanding NM flag, but according to our opinions, didn't put much weight on recent log content when making the decision to TD.

The reviewer isn't a "second opinion", as much as a judge in a courtroom isn't a "second opinion", or calling 911 isn't a "second opinion", or handing in a test to be marked isn't getting a "second opinion". The reviewer is asked to weigh evidence and make a judgment call. It's final unless it's appealed and determined to be wrong.  At best, appeals could be considered a second opinion that overrides the reviewer.

 

When you ask for a second opinion in medicine, it's because you have to make a decision and you're not convinced by what one doctor has told you.

Reviewers aren't doctors. Reviewer are dogs. Or something like that.

 

15 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure I can. I'm 100% confident no reviewer will admit that their job is to identify missing caches.

I wish they'd act like it.

Are you saying you want a reviewer's job to be identifying missing caches? :drama:

 

16 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Well I know for fact my reviewers never sat around waiting for NAs.

Must be another local difference, then. In my area, it used to be unusual and quite remarkable when an reviewer disabled a cache before an NA was posted. You're saying that in your area, they jumped in all the time without anyone flagging a problem for their attention?

 

I said no such thing.

And if it's a regional difference, then I rest my case that it's not mandated by HQ (and not due to the CHS tool) but judged regionally or individually, and the problem you have is with that reviewer's judgment.

 

17 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I can see why you thought there was a problem, but I don't see why you didn't think encouraging people to file NAs wasn't the better solution.

I'm not talking about NA. That's a different discussion. I never said anything about whether encouraging people to file NAs was a better solution.

 

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

But, nooooo, how dare they make us seekers step up and take any responsibility for interacting with COs to maintain the quality of the caches in our area.

You, we, can still do that. And you, we, should still do that.  Nothing there has changed. The sky is not falling.

Don't lecture me.

Then don't patronize me or put words in my mouth.

 

21 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The problem is that no one else does, even the people that used to do it as regularly as I do, the ones I watched to learn how to do it. That's because the system has changed to discourage them, not because of some lack of personal motivation.

An inferred discouragement, no less. As I said, there is no change to the system we had before, except that there is now an additional tool for reviewers that makes their jobs easier - not replace the abilities we still have. They have not asked that people post NMs less often. People are deciding for themselves to do that; yes, because the effect of reviewers doing their job easier and quicker means that perhaps 'we don't need to as much', but if we still did, it would make their job even easierer. Perhaps the fact they can sweep more easily is opening the door for people to be more hands off. I don't feel discouraged from posting NMs. I might feel like I don't need to post one if it's obvious there a problem and I think the CHS will catch it. But that's a choice I make for myself. I'm not blaming the CHS for fewer NMs being posted. I can see that the indirect effect is people not feeling they need to post them more often, perhaps. But geez, I still see plenty of NMs being posted, and I see reviewers taking action where a NM may not be posted. There's a whole lot of action going on.

 

26 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm not saying the sky is falling. I'm saying things are worse. And I point to specific examples and trend and even discuss why I think it's happening. The people that said "OMG, too many bad caches!!!" were saying the sky is falling when it wasn't and offered only dubious anecdotal evidence, yet GS completely revamped the way we detect bad caches anyway.

What I saw were threads about people complaining about bad caches and experiences. I see on social media many posts of photos and videos of bad condition caches. I see Groundspeak thinking "Okay, how can we attempt to improve the overall general geocaching experience? Is it possible to pre-emptively identify possible problems and get them in front of the eyes of reviewers without having to wait for them to become reported problems (if reported at all) because of an already-bad experience?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I'm just assuming enough people had - or perceived - problems for Groundspeak to spend their time and money developing the CHS.

 

Bolded for emphasis.  This is what I believe it to be - perceived.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

What I saw were threads about people complaining about bad caches and experiences. I see on social media many posts of photos and videos of bad condition caches.

 

And after nearly four years of CHS operation, there are still threads about people complaining about bad caches and experiences, and social media posts of photos and videos of bad condition caches. Whether that problem was perceived or real, it hasn't fixed it, or, it seems, even made any significant dent in it.

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

×