Jump to content

DNFs on a simple park and grab


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Didn't you advocate for doing nothing if you felt the cache was just fine? " If I thought the cache was fine I'd simply ignore it."  Based on the email Max provided, that will only delay the process, meaning you still need to go check on it, even if you think the cache is just fine.

 

 

Now you want to add more to the possible workload of a volunteer reviewer?  You can't agree that a false positive is a possibility and should be something stated in the email sent out?  Why must your compromise involve the reviewer?  Wasn't this automated program supposed to curtail some of the workload of our reviewers?  If you want to involve discussion between the reviewer and the CO, then we already have that process in place.  It's the "old" way of doing things.  We've come full circle but added a step and made it more complicated than it was originally.

 

I'd advocate for the ability to do nothing if, after a discussion with your reviewer, it's agreed upon.   We're not talking about the people who really believe that there is nothing wrong with their cache.  We're talking about the ones that go out of their way to avoid maintenance.    I'd say the majority of people who receive the e-mail actually take a look at the cache and take the appropriate action.   There is a segment of cache owners that will simply ignore it.  Most of these will be owners that are out of the game or simply don't care.  A small percentage will be good cache owners who genuinely don't think there's an issue.  Of this last group I'd guess that 90% of the time there is not an issue.  There has to be checks and balances.   You can't give a segment of cache owners carte blanche. 

 

So I see the e-mail as a positive thing for two reasons.  First I believe it will, buy it's very nature, spur more cache owners to fix problems before a reviewer actually has to get involved.  Which will ultimately save time and increases cache condition.   Second it sends an over all message of the importance of watching and maintaining your caches.   The fact that it even exists shows a concerted effort by GS to emphasize cache maintenance.               

Edited by justintim1999
spelling
Link to comment
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It depends entirely on the context of the DNFs. If they say in their DNF that it was the last cache for the day and getting dark so they called it quits and will try again next time, there's little point checking on the cache. If it's a difficult one for me to get to, like the T5 that was pinged by the CHS, I'll have a chat with the DNFer to try to figure it out, and in that case it became immediately obvious from the photo she sent me that she was looking in the wrong place. My visiting the cache won't fix that.

 

On the other hand, I'll often log DNFs on a cache that I know isn't missing, in one case someone else had found it straight after my unsuccessful search, or it's a nemesis cache that everyone else can find except me, or I was put off my muggles, or my search was thwarted by the terrain or something as mundane as dead batteries in the GPSr. On one of the caches I did on Monday, I came very close to DNFing it. My GPSr led me to the base of a waterfall but the hint suggested it was higher up. Just finding a way up was tough, then when I got to the top I realised I'd gone too high. I could see a ledge below that my GPSr was pointing to but couldn't see an obvious safe way to reach it. I started trying a way down but ended up too low again. The day was getting on and I was about to walk away and log it as a DNF when I spotted something that resonated with the hint so, after going in, up, over, around, down and back, I finally got there and made the find. The point I'm making is that it was within a hair's breadth of being a DNF but whether it was or not had nothing to do with the health of the cache. It was all down to my own caching ability. Most of my DNFs fall into that category - the cache is fine, I just couldn't find it on the day. If I do think there's a likelihood the cache is missing or misplaced and would like the CO to check on it, I'll log an NM, and that system works pretty well around here.

I think the key here is having a basic definition of what a dnf is.   It's amazing how many of the issues we discuss here all seem to mesh together as part of a problem or solution.   If were going to try to solve one particular issue we must first address the underlying problems.   Dnf's are one of those underlining problems.    It's easy to see that fewer dnf's would translate into fewer e-mails.  Before we get ourselves in a tizzy let me confirm that I'm all for cachers posting dnf's.    IMO a dnf should only be posted when you reach gz and have actually looked for the cache.    Here is where the bickering starts.  What's considered gz?   What constitutes a search?   For every cacher the answers to those questions will be different but I'd hope we could all agree that there are many instances where a dnf is posted that clearly wouldn't qualify as reaching gz and searching. .   

 

If we use dnfs wisely.  Post NM judiciously.  Up the level of our maintenance.  Post NA's where appropriate and generally play the game by the golden rule  I think the system would run quite well.   In fact if everyone did all these things we probably wouldn't need a system at all.  

Link to comment
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So if you owned a T4.5 cache that would take you four hours of driving plus another two of hiking through rugged terrain just to check on, and it got pinged by the CHS in the middle of summer because someone logged a DNF saying it was too hot for them and they weren't carrying enough water, how would you react? Would you do what the email says, that is go and check on the cache, disable it until you can or archive it? Or would you log an armchair OM? Or would you ignore it and wait for the reviewer to post a note like the one Max and 99 got?

I'd say the dnf was bogus and shouldn't have been posted.    In that situation a note would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation. 

 

I would have contacted my reviewer and pointed this out.   In this case, If I were the reviewer,  I would have told you to post an arm chair OM.

 

The above action would solve the issue but not the problem.   How do we streamline the process to make it easier on the owner and the reviewer?

 

Meanwhile why aren't we looking to fix the underlying issue of defining when a dnf should be posted?  

  

Link to comment
6 hours ago, niraD said:

I can live with that.

 

I can live with that too. But I'm not a volunteer reviewer.

 

And ultimately, the volunteer reviewers aren't the ones who need to know about the false positives. Ultimately, the lackeys in charge of the CHS algorithm are the ones who need to know about the false positives.

I'm sure you could live with that as I'm also sure the dead beat cache owner would be just fine with it too.   I disagree with your third point.  The volunteers are the first ones who need to know about the false positives.  Who else is going to correct the initial problem and then pass along the information to the lackeys?           

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
52 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

So can I.   What happens of the CO does nothing?  The CHS score doesn't change.  If the email as triggered by a DNF,  is subsequently found, the cache most likely doesn't require a visit.   If the CO doesn't nothing and the cache gets more DNFs, and/or NM logs as well, CHS score gets worse.    A reviewer might allow a "no response" from the first  CHS email but a second or third and they'll definitely take action. 

That's it in a nutshell.  So the e-mail is proactive.  It's says "Hey,  you may want to take a look at this cache and possibly avoid any issues down the road." 

 

The problem is how effective would that e-mail be if you include an option to do nothing?

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So if you owned a T4.5 cache that would take you four hours of driving plus another two of hiking through rugged terrain just to check on, and it got pinged by the CHS in the middle of summer because someone logged a DNF saying it was too hot for them and they weren't carrying enough water, how would you react? Would you do what the email says, that is go and check on the cache, disable it until you can or archive it? Or would you log an armchair OM? Or would you ignore it and wait for the reviewer to post a note like the one Max and 99 got?

I'd say the dnf was bogus and shouldn't have been posted.    In that situation a note would have saved everyone a lot of aggravation. 

 

I would have contacted my reviewer and pointed this out.   In this case, If I were the reviewer,  I would have told you to post an arm chair OM.

 

The above action would solve the issue but not the problem.   How do we streamline the process to make it easier on the owner and the reviewer?

 

Meanwhile why aren't we looking to fix the underlying issue of defining when a dnf should be posted?  

 

In my book that's a perfectly valid DNF. The searcher set off on a long and arduous journey specifically to find that cache but were unsuccessful. They DIDN'T FIND IT. Does it really matter if the reason they didn't find it was because they were defeated by the terrain or the weather instead of by the cache's camo? Why not just keep the DNF log in its original form, simply a statement that a searcher didn't find the cache, and instead use the perfectly good NM log when you want to actually say the cache might need maintenance?

 

You're never going to educate everyone to stop logging DNFs when it starts raining or gets dark or there are muggles or swarms of mosquitoes at GZ or the kids are tired or the GPSr batteries died or the terrain was more than they'd bargained for, or they messed up the waypoint calculation and were looking in the wrong place (I did that a few weeks ago and logged it as a DNF). As I said before, I've had sixty-something DNFs logged on my hides and only two of those were due to a problem with the cache, the other 58 were for all those other reasons where someone's tried to find the cache but didn't succeed. Trying to infer cache maintenance needs by counting DNF logs is simply a really bad idea, especially when we already have another log type (NM) tailor-made to addressing maintenance. They even added the canned "the cache might be missing" NM specifically for the case that the CHS is trying to second-guess DNFs for. If people are afraid to log NMs in some places, fix that problem, and let DNFs just say "I didn't find it today".

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Meanwhile why aren't we looking to fix the underlying issue of defining when a dnf should be posted?  

The CHS needs to deal with the way people actually post logs. If people need to change the way they post logs to accommodate the CHS, then the CHS is broken.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

So I see the e-mail as a positive thing for two reasons.  First I believe it will, buy it's very nature, spur more cache owners to fix problems before a reviewer actually has to get involved.  Which will ultimately save time and increases cache condition.   Second it sends an over all message of the importance of watching and maintaining your caches.   The fact that it even exists shows a concerted effort by GS to emphasize cache maintenance.  

 

You've already pointed out that there are primarily two types of COs out there - those that take their maintenance seriously and those who don't care.  The majority of caches owned by those who don't care are the caches that this maintenance push is targeting.  The CHS email isn't going to spur either of those types of COs to any action they don't already do.  Skirkers (to borrow the term from T.M.) will continue to shirk and the ones who maintain them will continue to maintain.  I fail to see how the email will affect either of those types of COs.  The only segment of cachers it might spur into action are those who placed them and then don't want them archived.  They'll do one of two things - log an armchair OM or actually maintain it.  I would venture to guess that this segment of the CO population is a much smaller segment than the two mentioned above, so it's only going to benefit a small portion of caches.  

 

With only two types of COs, one type already gets the importance of maintaining their caches and the other one doesn't care. An email isn't suddenly going to get that latter group to say, "Hey!  You know what?  This email I got from GS about my cache possibly needing maintenance has really changed my mind about how I view maintenance.  I'm going to go out right now and fix up all my caches."  However, those, like myself and others on here, who maintain their caches regularly, are getting emails from GS saying that their caches are, in essence, not being maintained properly.

 

As to the concerted effort, I'm not disputing the effort.  I'm disputing the results of this effort, as it pertains to my primary caching area.

Edited by coachstahly
clarification
Link to comment
Just now, coachstahly said:

 

You've already pointed out that there are primarily two types of COs out there - those that take their maintenance seriously and those who don't care.  The CHS email isn't going to spur either of those types of COs to any action they don't already do.  Skirkers (to borrow the term from T.M.) will continue to shirk and the ones who maintain them will continue to maintain.  I fail to see how the email will affect either of those types of COs.  The only segment of cachers it might spur into action are those who placed them and then don't want them archived.  They'll do one of two things - log an armchair OM or actually maintain it.  I would venture to guess that this segment of the CO population is a much smaller segment than the two mentioned above, so it's only going to benefit a small portion of caches.  

 

With only two types of COs, one type already gets the importance of maintaining their caches and the other one doesn't care. An email isn't suddenly going to get that latter group to say, "Hey!  You know what?  This email I got from GS about my cache possibly needing maintenance has really changed my mind about how I view maintenance.  I'm going to go out right now and fix up all my caches."  However, those, like myself and others on here, who maintain their caches regularly, are getting emails from GS saying that their caches are, in essence, not being maintained properly.

 

As to the concerted effort, I'm not disputing the effort.  I'm disputing the results of this effort, as it pertains to my primary caching area.

There's actually a third type.   The new or inexperienced cache owner.   This is the one that will benefit most from this e-mail.  

 

The experienced cache owner will find a way to work with it.

 

The negligent cache owner will either ignore it or try to find ways around it.  Both choices make it more likely the system and a reviewer will notice.      

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There's actually a third type.   The new or inexperienced cache owner.   This is the one that will benefit most from this e-mail.  

 

The experienced cache owner will find a way to work with it.

 

The negligent cache owner will either ignore it or try to find ways around it.  Both choices make it more likely the system and a reviewer will notice.      

 

That new or inexperienced cache owner will still fall into one of the two categories - maintainer or non-maintainer.  The email isn't going to radically change what type they're going to be.  There's a slim chance of that happening, but by the time most are ready to hide their first cache, their maintenance instincts are mostly formed, based on the caches they've found to that point.  If they find wet logs, pill bottles and film cans, and broken containers, that's what they're going to hide and maintenance isn't much of a priority.  If they find dry-ish logs, good containers and interesting caches, that's what they will think geocaching is about and will hide something similar in nature and maintain it as such.  To think that an email is going to influence them more than what their current influences are is a bit naive, IMO.  That's like someone getting one of those emails from Nigeria and going from skeptic to believer in the get rich quick scheme that was so popular a few years ago.  "They sound so sincere and honest.  If I pay their bank fees to allow them to access the money in their tied up account, they're going to send me my initial payment and interest for helping them with their troubles.  All I need to do is send them my bank account information.  What could go wrong?"

 

I can still remember my first hide and what I was expected to do as it pertained to maintenance.  Had this email been around, I can tell you that it wouldn't have changed my opinion about my responsibilities, one way or the other.  Those that care will continue to care until they don't at which time they'll archive their caches, remove their containers and move on.  Those that don't care, will never care, even with repeated emails.  

 

When one thinks of caches that most likely need maintenance, are they caches  being maintained or caches NOT being maintained?  The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it - NOT being maintained.  If they're not maintaining their caches, then this email and the CHS score don't even matter to those COs.  Those unmaintained caches will continue to remain unmaintained, so no good has come out of the email.  The ONLY good that might happen is that it might get put onto the road to archival.  That road, however, was already in place, per the options for cachers to post NM logs and/or NA logs.  However, I, as what I would consider a good maintainer (not great, but good), get an email saying that my cache isn't being maintained properly.  Do you see how that could rankle good maintainers and get them a bit upset?  We all realize that in the larger scope of things, this is supposed to improve maintenance and can deal with the emails as they come, but I'm being told I'm part of the problem, rather than the solution.  

Link to comment

At its core, the CHS is supposed to locate caches that need maintenance.  Those caches that need maintenance got to that point because the COs weren't maintaining their caches.  If they're not maintaining them to begin with, does anyone really believe that an email is going to get them to reverse course on their lack of maintenance?

 

 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Trying to infer cache maintenance needs by counting DNF logs is simply a really bad idea, especially when we already have another log type (NM) tailor-made to addressing maintenance. They even added the canned "the cache might be missing" NM specifically for the case that the CHS is trying to second-guess DNFs for. If people are afraid to log NMs in some places, fix that problem, and let DNFs just say "I didn't find it today".

 +1

Link to comment
15 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

That new or inexperienced cache owner will still fall into one of the two categories - maintainer or non-maintainer.  The email isn't going to radically change what type they're going to be.  There's a slim chance of that happening, but by the time most are ready to hide their first cache, their maintenance instincts are mostly formed, based on the caches they've found to that point.  If they find wet logs, pill bottles and film cans, and broken containers, that's what they're going to hide and maintenance isn't much of a priority.  If they find dry-ish logs, good containers and interesting caches, that's what they will think geocaching is about and will hide something similar in nature and maintain it as such.  To think that an email is going to influence them more than what their current influences are is a bit naive, IMO.  That's like someone getting one of those emails from Nigeria and going from skeptic to believer in the get rich quick scheme that was so popular a few years ago.  "They sound so sincere and honest.  If I pay their bank fees to allow them to access the money in their tied up account, they're going to send me my initial payment and interest for helping them with their troubles.  All I need to do is send them my bank account information.  What could go wrong?"

 

I can still remember my first hide and what I was expected to do as it pertained to maintenance.  Had this email been around, I can tell you that it wouldn't have changed my opinion about my responsibilities, one way or the other.  Those that care will continue to care until they don't at which time they'll archive their caches, remove their containers and move on.  Those that don't care, will never care, even with repeated emails.  

 

When one thinks of caches that most likely need maintenance, are they caches  being maintained or caches NOT being maintained?  The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it - NOT being maintained.  If they're not maintaining their caches, then this email and the CHS score don't even matter to those COs.  Those unmaintained caches will continue to remain unmaintained, so no good has come out of the email.  The ONLY good that might happen is that it might get put onto the road to archival.  That road, however, was already in place, per the options for cachers to post NM logs and/or NA logs.  However, I, as what I would consider a good maintainer (not great, but good), get an email saying that my cache isn't being maintained properly.  Do you see how that could rankle good maintainers and get them a bit upset?  We all realize that in the larger scope of things, this is supposed to improve maintenance and can deal with the emails as they come, but I'm being told I'm part of the problem, rather than the solution.  

You set the tone early so they develop the right work ethic and skills.   I assume from your name you're a coach so I'd think this would resonate.   Like a coach you need to personally set an example for them to follow.   This is where we all can contribute.   If your a cache owner maintain your caches so that others know how it's suppose to be done.   If your a cache finder,   be respectful of the land and the cache.  Be fair and post the correct logs.  

 

I'm sure at some time someone has encountered one of my cache that was not up to par.   Did they think I was a bad cache owner.   Maybe.   Unexpected things happen in life.  It's how you handle them that matters.  I know I'm a good cache owner so what others think really doesn't bother me.   

 

I doubt this e-mail will spur bad cache owners to do anything.   What it will do is build a case for archival.   It's sort of like a bad employee.   There are verbal warnings, written warnings and suspensions.   All are documented to build a case for dismissal and avoid any backlash.   When the employee says I've been fired unjustly you can pull out the file which documents all the reasons why they were.   

 

Nowhere in the e-mail dose it say your cache isn't being maintained properly.   It asks you to simply take a look at it to make sure it's ok.  If after a quick review you think all well than ignore the e-mail.         

Link to comment
15 hours ago, Gabeman26 said:

lol went to a cache once where people put easy find, found this fast, and so on and when I decided to give it a try. Looked for 20 minutes and no container. Alas after the last person logged it, the container went missing.

Most times it's simply the cacher was having a bad day and was suffering from a case of excited blindness,  but caches do go missing.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I doubt this e-mail will spur bad cache owners to do anything.   What it will do is build a case for archival.   It's sort of like a bad employee.   There are verbal warnings, written warnings and suspensions.   All are documented to build a case for dismissal and avoid any backlash.   When the employee says I've been fired unjustly you can pull out the file which documents all the reasons why they were. 

 

So you admit that the CHS won't do anything for the majority of the caches that need maintenance because those COs won't do it regardless.  What purpose does it serve then?  If it's to improve cache quality and it's not being acted upon by those COs whose caches need maintenance, then it serves no purpose.  The only recourse is archival.  If that's the route this is taking, then start doing it because it's not happening in my area.  If my 2.5/2 cache with no NM logs and 3 DNFs is pinged, then how many other caches have been sent this email due to falling below the threshold?

 

2/1 cache, last found in 4/2014 with a NM log and 10 straight DNFs.

2/1.5 - last found in 8/2014 with 5 straight DNFs and a NM log.  The NM log triggered the reviewer disable, not the second CHS email Max copied and posted.

1.5/2 - last found in 4/2015. 5 straight DNFs, a new container supposedly put out by CO, and 2 more DNFs.

1/2 - last found 4/2015 - 7 straight DNFs and an OM 2 years ago.

2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs

2.5/2 (like mine) - last found 6/2015 - 5 straight DNFs

1.5/1.5 - last found 5/2015 - 6 straight DNFs, an OM (supposedly replaced), and 6 more straight DNFs

1/2.5 - last found 10/2015 - 3 straight DNFs

2/2 - last found 10/2015 - 4 straight DNFs, an OM, then 6 more DNFs

1.5/1.5 - last found 11/2015 - 4 straight DNFs and a cacher filed a NM log last month.

2/1.5 - last found 1/2016 - 5 straight DNFs

 

That's 11 from the first 100 caches when filtering by last find.  All of these are tradtionals and all are caches with multiple DNFs.  I didn't even look at caches with found it logs that indicate a cache might need maintenance because the log is wet or the container is broken or in bad shape.  I didn't include 9 more similarly rated as they only had 2 DNFs as their last log and were in remote locations that probably don't get many visitors.  I didn't include puzzles because, well, they're puzzles.  Nor did I include higher D/T caches, although I'm guessing that many of them have been pinged as well but are still active.  Multis didn't make the list either but I'm sure many of them are missing a stage, which is most likely noted in the DNF logs.  Some of these caches have inactive COs, while the rest are still active.  I'm pretty sure that all of these caches have a pretty strong case for archival, yet nothing has been done, with one exception, and that was due to a cacher NM log, not a CHS email disabling it.  If the cacher NM log is what triggered the reviewer action for the caches above, and not the CHS (I'm assuming all of these would fall below the CHS threshold.  Am I wrong?), then it appears that's where the emphasis needs to be placed, rather than on a program that's supposed to single out caches that apparently need maintenance.

 

If I were to include those other 9, that means 1 in 5 caches in my primary caching area are in apparent need of maintenance (based solely on DNFs), yet nothing has come of it.  If it's building a case for archival, it's certainly taking a long time for them to get archived and that's why I believe the CHS isn't doing what it's supposed to do.  Either give it some teeth or drop the facade that this is going to help cache quality.  If GS is truly concerned about this and the reviewer for my area has more on his plate than he can handle (which wouldn't surprise me because he has a full time job, young kids, and is consistently responsive to emails from cachers with questions, both on FB and in private emails), then GS should appoint someone to take some of his workload off of his plate and give it to someone else.  It's been 2 1/2 years since the CHS was implemented and I'm just not seeing any consistent evidence of non-maintainers repairing their caches or getting them archived in my primary area.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Nowhere in the e-mail dose it say your cache isn't being maintained properly.   It asks you to simply take a look at it to make sure it's ok.  If after a quick review you think all well than ignore the e-mail.      

 

Your geocache, Mrs. Wiggins, Secratary to Mr. Tudball (GC6X5M7), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
  • Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
  • Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.
     

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article. 

 

Nowhere in the email does it say that this might be a false positive and everything is just fine either.  ALL implications within the email point to the fact that there's something wrong with the cache.  Fizzy and I both agree on this point.  We differ on the requirement to visit the cache.  Everything in the email points toward the owner of the cache apparently having to do maintenance.

 

A low Cache Health Score (regardless of the manner which causes it to dip beneath the threshold), by its very nature, means that the health of the cache is in bad enough shape that GS thinks it needs maintenance.  If they think it needs maintenance, then the only implication one can draw from that is the CO isn't maintaining the cache well enough.  I don't think I can make that any plainer to understand.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

So you admit that the CHS won't do anything for the majority of the caches that need maintenance because those COs won't do it regardless.  What purpose does it serve then?  If it's to improve cache quality and it's not being acted upon by those COs whose caches need maintenance, then it serves no purpose.  The only recourse is archival.  If that's the route this is taking, then start doing it because it's not happening in my area.  If my 2.5/2 cache with no NM logs and 3 DNFs is pinged, then how many other caches have been sent this email due to falling below the threshold?

 

2/1 cache, last found in 4/2014 with a NM log and 10 straight DNFs.

2/1.5 - last found in 8/2014 with 5 straight DNFs and a NM log.  The NM log triggered the reviewer disable, not the second CHS email Max copied and posted.

1.5/2 - last found in 4/2015. 5 straight DNFs, a new container supposedly put out by CO, and 2 more DNFs.

1/2 - last found 4/2015 - 7 straight DNFs and an OM 2 years ago.

2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs

2.5/2 (like mine) - last found 6/2015 - 5 straight DNFs

1.5/1.5 - last found 5/2015 - 6 straight DNFs, an OM (supposedly replaced), and 6 more straight DNFs

1/2.5 - last found 10/2015 - 3 straight DNFs

2/2 - last found 10/2015 - 4 straight DNFs, an OM, then 6 more DNFs

1.5/1.5 - last found 11/2015 - 4 straight DNFs and a cacher filed a NM log last month.

2/1.5 - last found 1/2016 - 5 straight DNFs

 

That's 11 from the first 100 caches when filtering by last find.  All of these are tradtionals and all are caches with multiple DNFs.  I didn't even look at caches with found it logs that indicate a cache might need maintenance because the log is wet or the container is broken or in bad shape.  I didn't include 9 more similarly rated as they only had 2 DNFs as their last log and were in remote locations that probably don't get many visitors.  I didn't include puzzles because, well, they're puzzles.  Nor did I include higher D/T caches, although I'm guessing that many of them have been pinged as well but are still active.  Multis didn't make the list either but I'm sure many of them are missing a stage, which is most likely noted in the DNF logs.  Some of these caches have inactive COs, while the rest are still active.  I'm pretty sure that all of these caches have a pretty strong case for archival, yet nothing has been done, with one exception, and that was due to a cacher NM log, not a CHS email disabling it.  If the cacher NM log is what triggered the reviewer action for the caches above, and not the CHS (I'm assuming all of these would fall below the CHS threshold.  Am I wrong?), then it appears that's where the emphasis needs to be placed, rather than on a program that's supposed to single out caches that apparently need maintenance.

 

If I were to include those other 9, that means 1 in 5 caches in my primary caching area are in apparent need of maintenance (based solely on DNFs), yet nothing has come of it.  If it's building a case for archival, it's certainly taking a long time for them to get archived and that's why I believe the CHS isn't doing what it's supposed to do.  Either give it some teeth or drop the facade that this is going to help cache quality.  If GS is truly concerned about this and the reviewer for my area has more on his plate than he can handle (which wouldn't surprise me because he has a full time job, young kids, and is consistently responsive to emails from cachers with questions, both on FB and in private emails), then GS should appoint someone to take some of his workload off of his plate and give it to someone else.  It's been 2 1/2 years since the CHS was implemented and I'm just not seeing any consistent evidence of non-maintainers repairing their caches or getting them archived in my primary area.

 

 

Your geocache, Mrs. Wiggins, Secratary to Mr. Tudball (GC6X5M7), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
  • Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
  • Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.
     

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article. 

 

Nowhere in the email does it say that this might be a false positive and everything is just fine either.  ALL implications within the email point to the fact that there's something wrong with the cache.  Fizzy and I both agree on this point.  We differ on the requirement to visit the cache.  Everything in the email points toward the owner of the cache apparently having to do maintenance.

 

A low Cache Health Score (regardless of the manner which causes it to dip beneath the threshold), by its very nature, means that the health of the cache is in bad enough shape that GS thinks it needs maintenance.  If they think it needs maintenance, then the only implication one can draw from that is the CO isn't maintaining the cache well enough.  I don't think I can make that any plainer to understand.

 

I already explained what I think the purpose of the e-mail is but here it is again.   

 

1.   As a teaching tool for new cachers

2.   A method of documenting potential issues

3.   A way to determine if someone is still active. 

4.   A friendly reminder. 

 

In the examples you've given I'd guess that the local reviewer for each is well aware of the caches situation.  I'd be surprised if the CHS didn't flag most if not all of them.     I'd bet they’ve all received the e-mail, some more than once.  

If I were to put on my reviewers cap here’s how I’d see them.

 

2/1 cache, last found in 4/2014 with a NM log and 10 straight DNFs.   Should be archived

 

2/1.5 - last found in 8/2014 with 5 straight DNFs and a NM log.  The NM log triggered the reviewer disable, not the second CHS email Max copied and posted. – 5 dnfs seems to be a pretty long leash for a 2/1.5 cache.  The e-mail may help here. 

 

1.5/2 - last found in 4/2015. 5 straight DNFs, a new container supposedly put out by CO, and 2 more DNFs. – Suspicious.  Would probably dig a little deeper

 

1/2 - last found 4/2015 - 7 straight DNFs and an OM 2 years ago. -  Need more info. 

 

2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs -  Not overly worried about this one.

 

2.5/2 (like mine) - last found 6/2015 - 5 straight DNFs – 2.5/2 cache that was last laid eyes upon three years ago with 5 people failing to find it????   I'd want to know what's going.

 

1.5/1.5 - last found 5/2015 - 6 straight DNFs, an OM (supposedly replaced), and 6 more straight DNFs – Suspicious.  Would probably dig a little deeper

 

1/2.5 - last found 10/2015 - 3 straight DNFs - Not worried about it.

 

2/2 - last found 10/2015 - 4 straight DNFs, an OM, then 6 more DNFs – Suspicious.  More digging

 

1.5/1.5 - last found 11/2015 - 4 straight DNFs and a cacher filed a NM log last month.   How long since the NM?  What information was in the NM?    I'd give it a little more time to see if the owner responds before taking action.   Another case where the e-mail could help.

 

2/1.5 - last found 1/2016 - 5 straight DNFs - I'd be looking to see if the owner was still active.

 

This brings up another point I’ve made earlier about when I think a dnf should be used (only after gz has been reached and a search has been conducted)    I wonder how many of these dnfs fit this description?   I also wonder how many caches (like  2/2 - last found 5/2015 - 3 straight DNFs) are passed over by other cachers because of the dnfs.   This one may still be there and in good shape but no one want’s to waste their time looking for it.     A cache like this may benefit from the e-mail as it may prompt the owner to take a look and post an OML. 

  

If you put a gun to my head (I know what your thinking) and told me I had to decide what to do with all these caches right then and there I’d disable all but two of them.    If I had a little more time I’d like to find out what the real story is behind each.

 

I think the CHS and the e-mail are useful tools but they’re only useful if the information is acted upon in a timely manor.   My guess is that GS is hoping the e-mail will prompt owners to resolve some of these problems before a reviewer has to get involved thus reducing their workload.   

I don’t think the e-mail is as big a deal as some are making it out to be.   The angst over it goes much deeper and for the life of me I can’t understand why.            

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I already explained what I think the purpose of the e-mail is but here it is again.   

 

1.   As a teaching tool for new cachers

2.   A method of documenting potential issues

3.   A way to determine if someone is still active. 

4.   A friendly reminder. 

      

 

So here's a cache that "earned" the "friendly reminder."  Which of your four purposes does this cache fall under?

 

4/4.5 traditional placed in 2007 at 11,000 feet in the mountains of Colorado.  There were 5 finds in the first 3 months after publication and then no more finds until I found the seven-years-lonely cache in 2014.  Subsequent to my Found It log there had been just two logs, both of which were Write Notes.  One was the same day I logged the find from a previous DNF longer congratulating me on the find and the second was from that same cacher earlier this summer saying he may try for it again.  This week the CO got the "friendly reminder" email.

 

In my opinion there was ZERO reason for the email.  And in case you think it could be 1) or 3), the CO began this hobby in 2005 and to this day has been a very active cacher (over 10,000 finds) and a CO who is very good at maintaining his hides (nearly 300 hides).  What would make you think it's either 2) or 4)?

 

Something is still out of whack with the algorithm when it comes to harder caches.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
13 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

1.   As a teaching tool for new cachers

2.   A method of documenting potential issues

3.   A way to determine if someone is still active. 

4.   A friendly reminder. 

 

1. What is it teaching them?  To maintain their caches?  Like they don't know this?  They're not going to be the ones to receive this email unless it's a false positive, as it's a "new" cache and unlikely to fall below the CHS threshold.

 

2. I get that but documenting isn't the same as action.  There's no consistent action being taken in my area.  

 

3.  What?  Just because they receive an email and don't act on it means they're inactive?  Didn't you say you'd ignore an email you thought was a false positive?  Cachers that don't maintain their caches can be active cachers (as it pertains to finding), so this email doesn't provide any accurate means for determining if someone is active or inactive.

 

4.  It's neither friendly, nor unfriendly, IMO, but it's certainly assuming the worst (needs maintenance) without even acknowledging that the possibility exists that it might not need maintenance.  I'm tired of this argument.  As both Fizzy and I have pointed out, all implications of this email are that your cache needs maintenance. I'll say it again.  A low Cache Health Score (regardless of the manner which causes it to dip beneath the threshold), by its very nature, means that the health of the cache is in bad enough shape that GS thinks it needs maintenance.  If they think it needs maintenance, then the only implication one can draw from that is the CO isn't maintaining the cache well enough. 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think the CHS and the e-mail are useful tools but they’re only useful if the information is acted upon in a timely manor.   My guess is that GS is hoping the e-mail will prompt owners to resolve some of these problems before a reviewer has to get involved thus reducing their workload.   

I don’t think the e-mail is as big a deal as some are making it out to be.   The angst over it goes much deeper and for the life of me I can’t understand why.            

 

You strongly want to believe that this email will do the things you say it will, but continually use words like "may", think", "might" and "hope".  All those words show the uncertainty that something will get done.  Knowingly or subconsciously, you are admitting that it has two possible outcomes, one of which reinforces your belief and the other with runs counter to your belief.  I can tell you with 100% certainty that this email will not do anything to change the minds of COs who don't perform maintenance and those are the large majority of COs that should receive this email.  If the large majority of COs will never be spurred into maintenance because of this email, then this email is failing to do what it's supposed to do a majority of the time.  Why would you do something that fails more than it succeeds?  The only thing that might shake them from their self-induced inaction is reviewer action.  The email is a paper tiger and until caches get disabled and archived, it won't help fix the majority of caches that need fixing.

 

 

Link to comment
14 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If you put a gun to my head (I know what your thinking) and told me I had to decide what to do with all these caches right then and there I’d disable all but two of them.

 

 I'm making an assumption with regard to the caches I used as examples.  I believe that they all should have received a CHS triggered email, which we can't know with any certainty.  

 

You and I agree that 81% of them need reviewer action due to inaction on the COs part but that means the email hasn't done what it's supposed to do.  Why would you continue sending out an email that has an 80% failure rate?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, icezebra11 said:

 

So here's a cache that "earned" the "friendly reminder."  Which of your four purposes does this cache fall under?

 

4/4.5 traditional placed in 2007 at 11,000 feet in the mountains of Colorado.  There were 5 finds in the first 3 months after publication and then no more finds until I found the seven-years-lonely cache in 2014.  Subsequent to my Found It log there had been just two logs, both of which were Write Notes.  One was the same day I logged the find from a previous DNF longer congratulating me on the find and the second was from that same cacher earlier this summer saying he may try for it again.  This week the CO got the "friendly reminder" email.

 

In my opinion there was ZERO reason for the email.  And in case you think it could be 1) or 3), the CO began this hobby in 2005 and to this day has been a very active cacher (over 10,000 finds) and a CO who is very good at maintaining his hides (nearly 300 hides).  What would make you think it's either 2) or 4)?

 

Something is still out of whack with the algorithm when it comes to harder caches.

In the guidelines under maintaining geocache container the first entry is "Visit the geocache regularly."    I understand the difficulty in that with the cache you've referenced but I'd have to guess that's the reason the cache received the e-mail.    Did the cache owner run out there and take a look?   I doubt it as I doubt any other action was taken against this cache or it's owner.

 

I agree some tweaking is necessary.  What I don't understand is why this e-mail angers some people.    It shouldn't and that's why I think there's something deeper going on here.    

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

1. What is it teaching them?  To maintain their caches?  Like they don't know this?  They're not going to be the ones to receive this email unless it's a false positive, as it's a "new" cache and unlikely to fall below the CHS threshold.

 

2. I get that but documenting isn't the same as action.  There's no consistent action being taken in my area.  

 

3.  What?  Just because they receive an email and don't act on it means they're inactive?  Didn't you say you'd ignore an email you thought was a false positive?  Cachers that don't maintain their caches can be active cachers (as it pertains to finding), so this email doesn't provide any accurate means for determining if someone is active or inactive.

 

4.  It's neither friendly, nor unfriendly, IMO, but it's certainly assuming the worst (needs maintenance) without even acknowledging that the possibility exists that it might not need maintenance.  I'm tired of this argument.  As both Fizzy and I have pointed out, all implications of this email are that your cache needs maintenance. I'll say it again.  A low Cache Health Score (regardless of the manner which causes it to dip beneath the threshold), by its very nature, means that the health of the cache is in bad enough shape that GS thinks it needs maintenance.  If they think it needs maintenance, then the only implication one can draw from that is the CO isn't maintaining the cache well enough. 

 

I think it's setting the level of maintenance required.   Some new cache owners think it set it and forget it or they're not sure when action should be taken. 

 

I can't speak to reviewer action in your area.

 

I said it was one way to confirm activity.

 

I don't see how it assumes the worst.   all it says is you may want to take a look. 

 

I'd guess a low health score is just a possible red flag.   I'm sure there's a number in the system that indicates that a cache is, more l likely than not,  in trouble.   Can some have 4 or 5 dnf and be fine.  Yes.  Can some have a NM on it and be fine.  Yes.   Can one have 2 dnf and be missing.  Yes.   There are a host of variables involved here.  IMO the CHS looks at all the concrete data and determines what caches may need to be looked at.   The e-mail is an attempt to get some of those resolved without reviewer intervention.  I'd guess (after some time has passed to give owners a chance to act)  a reviewer begins looking into the particulars of those caches and acts accordingly.   

 

I can't agree that all implications of this e-mail are a cache "needs maintenance" because of that little word "might" which to me means it may or may not.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't see how it assumes the worst.   all it says is you may want to take a look. 

 

Why does it want you to take a look?

 

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

The e-mail is an attempt to get some of those resolved without reviewer intervention.

 

It's NEVER going to get those who don't maintain to resolve any issues with their caches.  You and I agree that 80% of the caches I listed as examples need reviewer intervention.  The email should have been sent to all of those COs to address any issues, IMO.  80% haven't done ANYTHING to show that they plan on maintaining their caches.  The email didn't do what you think it is supposed to do at a spectacular 80% failure rate.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Gabeman26 said:

There is a cacher in my town that owns about 40 caches. About 32 have been archived recently... Maybe he put them up too quickly and can't maintain them. 

I myself would like to hide 1 or 2. Still deciding on it.

 

I'd encourage you to hide one to see if it's something you're interested in doing.  Keep in mind that they'd like to have some semblance of cache permanency, so plan on it being out for 3 months at a minimum.  That 3 months will let you know if it's something you want to do or not.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

 I'm making an assumption with regard to the caches I used as examples.  I believe that they all should have received a CHS triggered email, which we can't know with any certainty.  

 

You and I agree that 81% of them need reviewer action due to inaction on the COs part but that means the email hasn't done what it's supposed to do.  Why would you continue sending out an email that has an 80% failure rate?

81% if you put a gun to my head.  Fortunately for everyone the game's not that serious.   

 

  I followed the link you provided to the help center article and here's what's there.

 

Role of community volunteer reviewer

If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance.

Answer your reviewer with a “Write Note” on the cache page and let them know when you will do maintenance.

Thanks for your help in keeping the game fun!

 

Again there's the word might.   You could probably use the "write a note" feature on the cache page to indicate why you think nothing needs to be done or you could do nothing and put that e-mail in your spam folder never to be seen again.   

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

What I don't understand is why this e-mail angers some people.

Perhaps because some people are concerned about the negative effect the system is having on the kind of geocaching they value and enjoy, in exchange for some possible improvement to the kind of geocaching they make a point of avoiding.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Again there's the word might.   You could probably use the "write a note" feature on the cache page to indicate why you think nothing needs to be done or you could do nothing and put that e-mail in your spam folder never to be seen again.   

 

The WN log does nothing to the CHS score, meaning it's still beneath the threshold and still flagged.  Doing nothing doesn't do anything to the score either.  You're still subject to receiving future emails asking you to check on your cache.  A write note will let the reviewer know why you think it's OK, but it still won't change the fact that it's still beneath the threshold and still subject to more nag emails that will require an OM log to get it back up above the threshold.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Gabeman26 said:

There is a cacher in my town that owns about 40 caches. About 32 have been archived recently... Maybe he put them up too quickly and can't maintain them. 

I myself would like to hide 1 or 2. Still deciding on it.

Go for it.   I had 23 caches and just recently archived the 5 stage multi because I felt I didn't have the time to maintain everything like I should.    Becoming a cache owner is the best way to give back to the activity.  Place as many caches as your comfortable taking care of.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I'll ask again since you chose not to answer.  Why do they want you to take a look?

I guess I'm choosing not to answer in the way you'd like me to.  It's simple.  They want me to take a look at the cache because there could be something wrong with it and they'd like to see more active owner maintenance.     If one of my caches received just one dnf I take notice.   I read the log and based on what cache it is decide whether or not I want to check up on it.   If a cache has 2 or 3 dnfs I'd be concerned and probably check it out regardless of the e-mail.    I think this is the thinking they'd like to see across the board.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, niraD said:

Perhaps because some people are concerned about the negative effect the system is having on the kind of geocaching they value and enjoy, in exchange for some possible improvement to the kind of geocaching they make a point of avoiding.

This I get and agree with.   Just because you have a high D/T cache doesn't mean you should be subjected to unnecessary work.  I'd expect the veteran cache owners to understand what GS trying to accomplish here and be willing to work with the system until the proper adjustment can be made.   

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

 

16 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

They want me to take a look at the cache because there could be something wrong with it

 

Exactly.  That's assuming the worst.

 

I see it as GCHQ trying to have a viable database that will attract new members. 

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Exactly.  That's assuming the worst.

It is????   I mean a cache doesn't receive the e-mail if it has nothing but finds on it right.  Could it be that some of these dnfs are actual issues and the e-mail resulted in some of them getting fixed without reviewer action?   Is it possible?   In the future I think GS will release the data on all this and I'm betting it will have done more good than bad.  Of course the numbers won't mean anything to those who had to suffer through the e-mail reminder.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I mean a cache doesn't receive the e-mail if it has nothing but finds on it right

 

That's exactly right!  You're making my point for me.  That's why this email is assuming the worst possible situation about a cache (it needs maintenance).  You're not being asked to take a look at a cache because there might not be something wrong with it.  You're being asked to take a look at a cache because there might be something wrong with it.


The CHS program takes the data and determines the probability that a cache needs maintenance.  It does not know that for a fact so it has to determine the odds that it does need maintenance vs. the odds that it doesn't need maintenance.  There are only two possible outcomes this program can come to - a good CHS or a bad CHS..  The first option is that the program has determined that the probability is low that it needs maintenance, so no CHS email is sent out. That's the best possible outcome of the CHS program. The actual real life status of the cache doesn't even matter.  The second option is If a CHS email has gone out, the program has determined that the probability is high that a cache needs maintenance.  That's the worst possible outcome.  The actual real life status of the cache doesn't even matter here.  

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Could it be that some of these dnfs are actual issues and the e-mail resulted in some of them getting fixed without reviewer action?   Is it possible?  

 

That's certainly a possibility and I'm sure it's happened.  I'm not debating that point.  I never have, with the sole exception as it pertains to cachers who do no maintenance whatsoever.

 

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In the future I think GS will release the data on all this and I'm betting it will have done more good than bad.  Of course the numbers won't mean anything to those who had to suffer through the e-mail reminder.

 

If they do release stats and they show that it worked as intended (the CO proactively fixed their cache) in a majority of the COs that it was sent to (without reviewer intervention because that's part of the purpose of the CHS), then by all means I'll be the first to congratulate GS on producing something that has made the game better.  However, both Team Microdot and Lone.R have provided statistics and examples that show that even with reviewer initiated actions, the repair rate of caches that need maintenance by their respective COs is very low.

 

Nowhere have I said there are negative consequences or bad outcomes with regard to what they're trying to do.  I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  I just don't think it's an effective means for targeting caches that need maintenance because a majority of those types of caches are owned by COs who choose not to perform maintenance.  Otherwise, they wouldn't need maintenance.  No email is going to get them to clean up their caches.  Reviewer action is the only thing that might budge them from inaction because it means that their cache might be archived.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

 

I see it as GCHQ trying to have a viable database that will attract new members. 

 

That only works if COs proactively fix their caches based on the email.  You've shown, multiple times, that even with reviewer action (the next step past this email), the repair rate of disabled caches is very low.  Your repeated comments to highlight the lack of maintenance over the last few years (while the CHS was implemented) shows that maintenance isn't being done nearly enough.  That means that any emails that have gone out haven't had any noticeable effect, based on what you say you usually find when out caching.  

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's exactly right!  You're making my point for me.  That's why this email is assuming the worst possible situation about a cache (it needs maintenance).  You're not being asked to take a look at a cache because there might not be something wrong with it.  You're being asked to take a look at a cache because there might be something wrong with it.

 

The CHS program takes the data and determines the probability that a cache needs maintenance.  It does not know that for a fact so it has to determine the odds that it does need maintenance vs. the odds that it doesn't need maintenance.  There are only two possible outcomes this program can come to - a good CHS or a bad CHS..  If a CHS email has gone out, the program has determined that the probability is high that a cache needs maintenance.  That's assuming the worst.  The actual real life status of the cache doesn't even matter here.   The other option is that the program has determined that the probability is low that it needs maintenance, so no CHS email is sent out. That's the best possible outcome of the CHS program. The actual real life status of the cache doesn't even matter here either.

 

 

That's certainly a possibility and I'm sure it's happened.  I'm not debating that point.  I never have, with the sole exception as it pertains to cachers who do no maintenance whatsoever.

 

 

If they do release stats and they show that it worked as intended (the CO proactively fixed their cache) in a majority of the COs that it was sent to (without reviewer intervention because that's part of the purpose of the CHS), then by all means I'll be the first to congratulate GS on producing something that has made the game better.  However, both Team Microdot and Lone.R have provided statistics and examples that show that even with reviewer initiated actions, the repair rate of caches that need maintenance by their respective COs is very low.

 

Nowhere have I said there are negative consequences or bad outcomes with regard to what they're trying to do.  I'm not sure where you're getting that from.  I just don't think it's an effective means for targeting caches that need maintenance because a majority of those types of caches are owned by COs who choose not to perform maintenance.  Otherwise, they wouldn't need maintenance.  No email is going to get them to clean up their caches.  Reviewer action is the only thing that might budge them from inaction because it means that their cache might be archived.

Maybe like you we should all assume that all the caches that have multiple dnf are fine and their owners are just not very attentive. The best possible situation.   But we know that's not the case.

 

You keep talking like I think this e-mail is some magic bullet that's going to solve the current maintenance issues.   I don't think it was designed to do that because there is no repercussion for ignoring it.   If your CHS is low the only thing that's going to bring it up is your involvement. 

 

 IMO it's intent is to educate.  To bring awareness to the importance of cache maintenance and to let others know that poor cache maintenance is unacceptable.  The CHS has put a new emphasis on holding cache owners to a higher standard.  A standard they agreed to uphold when they decided to hide a cache.   

 

Whether or not it's effective only time will tell but I think the idea is sound.   

Edited by justintim1999
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That only works if COs proactively fix their caches based on the email.  You've shown, multiple times, that even with reviewer action (the next step past this email), the repair rate of disabled caches is very low.  Your repeated comments to highlight the lack of maintenance over the last few years (while the CHS was implemented) shows that maintenance isn't being done nearly enough.  That means that any emails that have gone out haven't had any noticeable effect, based on what you say you usually find when out caching.  

 

True, most owners do nothing, but it does seem to be a useful tool for reviewers. Are you saying that the CHS tool should be eliminated, or just the email? 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

You keep talking like I think this e-mail is some magic bullet that's going to solve the current maintenance issues.   I don't think it was designed to do that because there is no repercussion for ignoring it.   If your CHS is low the only thing that's going to bring it up is your involvement.

 

Did you read the reviewer note that Max and 99 posted earlier in this thread that someone received as a result of ignoring the email?

 

Quote

Greetings from your Community Volunteer Reviewer,

Geocaching HQ uses a calculation called Health Score which rates caches to identify those that might need attention from the cache owner. Emails are sent by Geocaching HQ to the cache owners of low scoring caches to encourage them to check on their caches. To learn more about the Health Score and what can affect your cache's Health Score, I recommend that you read this Help Center article (link).

Based upon its Health Score, this cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention. You should have received an email about this about a month ago.

I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email. Therefore, I am temporarily disabling this cache until you, the owner, can check on its status. After checking the cache and doing any necessary maintenance, you can click on the “enable listing” button on the top of the cache page to reactivate it. You do not have to contact me to do it for you. However, please send me a note when this has been done. Also, please post an Owner Maintenance log after you have checked on your cache.

If your cache is actually there, you might consider raising the Difficulty rating on it, as it may be much harder to find than the Difficulty rating shown on your cache page.

Please be aware that if you do not take action to address the issue with your cache by 09/07/18, or at least post a note to your cache page that you intend to do so, or send me an email stating your intentions with this cache, it will be archived at the direction of Geocaching HQ.

 

That sounds very much like a repercussion for ignoring it, and is consistent with what we were told at the Meet the Reviewers session at a recent mega - don't ignore the email because doing so will put you on the reviewer's hit list.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Did you read the reviewer note that Max and 99 posted earlier in this thread that someone received as a result of ignoring the email?

 

 

That sounds very much like a repercussion for ignoring it, and is consistent with what we were told at the Meet the Reviewers session at a recent mega - don't ignore the email because doing so will put you on the reviewer's hit list.

While this may be true for "real" maintenance problems, Reviewers are quite capable of identifying obvious false positives, and then deciding to take no action at all.  Furthermore, if we see a trend or pattern of false positives, Reviewers provide direct feedback to Geocaching HQ so that the Cache Health Score algorithm can be tweaked.  It has, in fact, been tweaked on multiple occasions since the launch of CHS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

 I mean a cache doesn't receive the e-mail if it has nothing but finds on it right. 

 

Actually, according to the Help Centre page, one of the things that can trigger the email is a cache that simply "has not been found in a long time". I haven't seen any concrete examples of this, although that remote mountain-top one mentioned earlier might be one. One of my hides (GC664DZ) was last found in 2016 and the most recent searcher's log was a DNF in May 2017. I've posted two OMs since then when I've done a bit of a clean-up around the waypoints, so that's probably saved it from being pinged, but I suppose eventually it'll get the email from simply not being visited enough now that all the locals have done it.

Link to comment
On ‎9‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 9:30 PM, icezebra11 said:

Hey 321geocache, see what you started?!  :lol::lol:

 

 

I know! :P Funny thing is, my original post had nothing to do about the CHS, or CHS emails. In fact, the original question I had has actually been answered, as I've had a Found It log on the cache in question. 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Keystone said:

While this may be true for "real" maintenance problems, Reviewers are quite capable of identifying obvious false positives, and then deciding to take no action at all.  Furthermore, if we see a trend or pattern of false positives, Reviewers provide direct feedback to Geocaching HQ so that the Cache Health Score algorithm can be tweaked.  It has, in fact, been tweaked on multiple occasions since the launch of CHS.

 

The reviewers at the mega here specifically addressed the issue of false positives and their advice was that the CO should still log an OM explaining it, as otherwise the ignored email is seen as an unresponsive CO rather than a cache that might or mightn't need maintenance.

Link to comment

An update on something similar to what happened around the time of my OP. I recently placed a cache, in fact the title was "A Park and Grab." It was published today and already has a DNF, as well as someone who wouldn't find it who contacted me. I think my "park and grabs" must not be that easy... :D

Edited by 321geocache
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...