Jump to content

DNFs on a simple park and grab


321geocache
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

Have you ever received on of these e-mails?

 

Yes, two.  Both times were false positives, the most recent being the one I've referenced on the other thread.  Most of the time the cachers in my area email or text me with any issues they might be having on one of my caches.  Most of my OM logs are due to that rather than a NM log.

 

Again I ask, why should I be asked to perform maintenance on a cache solely on the basis that it hasn't been found?  Aren't cachers encouraged to log their DNFs?  Why does a DNF detract from the overall score of a cache?  If it's solely to alleviate the possibility that it's missing, then why isn't every cache pinged in the same manner?  As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of 1.5/1.5 caches with DNFs AND NM logs that are still limping along while my 2.5/2, which has never had a NM log, is pinged for something possibly being wrong, without any means to let GS know that it was a false positive.

 

I realize that there's no way for us to know who has or hasn't received one of these emails, so that's a moot point.  However, I've yet to see, at least in my area, a decline in caches that are probably MIA or in rough shape, that have been disabled and/or archived by a reviewer.  Perhaps our reviewer (we have one for the entire state) has too much on his plate and just doesn't have time for this.  I fully understand that (he's been great so no complaints from me on that front), but to claim that this should improve cache quality is something I've yet to see.

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

Maybe part of the problem is a disconnect with your local reviewer.    If it did have a high D/T cache and was receiving this reminder e-mail I'd look at the logs and determine whether or not a visit was required.   If I thought the cache was fine I'd simply ignore it.

Too bad that isn't presented as an option in the text of the "friendly" reminder itself.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This automated e-mail is a direct result of those changes and IMO necessary in dealing with the vast majority of caches that are out there today,  the majority of them being low D/T. 

Hmm... Maybe that would be a solution. What if the "friendly" reminder were sent only to caches visible to basic members in Groundspeak's Geocaching app? Caches with a difficulty/terrain rating greater than 1.5 (or is it 2.0 now?) would be exempt. That way, the "friendly" reminder could improve things for the vast majority, where it is "necessary", and the owners of the more rare and endangered challenging caches could be left alone.

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

 

Really?  A change in D/T rating will magically increase finds and reduce DNFs?  The only way it will reduce DNFs is if it "scares" more cachers away from trying.

It may stop some new caches from trying to find caches that are beyond they're abilities.  Some caches that are available on the free app probably shouldn't be.  

Link to comment
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Yes, two.  Both times were false positives, the most recent being the one I've referenced on the other thread.  Most of the time the cachers in my area email or text me with any issues they might be having on one of my caches.  Most of my OM logs are due to that rather than a NM log.

 

Again I ask, why should I be asked to perform maintenance on a cache solely on the basis that it hasn't been found?  Aren't cachers encouraged to log their DNFs?  Why does a DNF detract from the overall score of a cache?  If it's solely to alleviate the possibility that it's missing, then why isn't every cache pinged in the same manner?  As I've mentioned before, there are plenty of 1.5/1.5 caches with DNFs AND NM logs that are still limping along while my 2.5/2, which has never had a NM log, is pinged for something possibly being wrong, without any means to let GS know that it was a false positive.

 

I realize that there's no way for us to know who has or hasn't received one of these emails, so that's a moot point.  However, I've yet to see, at least in my area, a decline in caches that are probably MIA or in rough shape, that have been disabled and/or archived by a reviewer.  Perhaps our reviewer (we have one for the entire state) has too much on his plate and just doesn't have time for this.  I fully understand that (he's been great so no complaints from me on that front), but to claim that this should improve cache quality is something I've yet to see.

So we're all up in arms about two e-mails?     

 

The answer to why is because I believe the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this e-mail are owned by people who may not be as dedicated to the activity as you and I. 

 

I think that the CHS was implemented to help the woefully understaffed review department as a way to try to increase cache quality and deal with the millions of caches now out there.  

 

For the most part I'm on your side.   Owners with high D/T caches are having to absorb a disproportionate amount of the issues caused by the CHS but that doesn't mean it's not making a positive impact.

 

The question is do we trash it because it may negatively effect some caches or do we try to look at the bigger picture?  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

Hmm... Maybe that would be a solution. What if the "friendly" reminder were sent only to caches visible to basic members in Groundspeak's Geocaching app? Caches with a difficulty/terrain rating greater than 1.5 (or is it 2.0 now?) would be exempt. That way, the "friendly" reminder could improve things for the vast majority, where it is "necessary", and the owners of the more rare and endangered challenging caches could be left alone.

Although I'm not going to laugh at that suggestion because I think there are things like this that could be done,  I have to say all cache owners should be considered equal .   Therefor the rules and guidelines should apply to all.  

 

Also by doing something like this you're basically admitting that It's just too much of a pain to maintain caches with a high D/T,  and by owning one you're somehow exempt from  the rules that govern the rest of us.    Unfortunately in some cases it may just be the case and that dose make me sad.

 

So what do we do about it?   

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

So we're all up in arms about two e-mails?     

Do you really think that there have been only two false positives where the "friendly" email reminder was sent when the logs indicated nothing wrong with the cache?

 

6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Also by doing something like this you're basically admitting that It's just too much of a pain to maintain caches with a high D/T,  and by owning one you're somehow exempt from  the rules that govern the rest of us.

Not at all. You're just admitting that there is a difference between properly maintaining a cache and appeasing the CHS algorithm.

 

I don't think owners of caches visible to basic members should be expected to pop over just because someone logged a DNF either, but at least its easy for the owners of such caches to do so. The fact that it is non-trivial for owners of challenging caches to pop over just because someone logged a DNF illustrates the foolishness of expecting this behavior as part of proper cache maintenance.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The answer to why is because I believe the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this e-mail are owned by people who may not be as dedicated to the activity as you and I. 

 

I think that the CHS was implemented to help the woefully understaffed review department as a way to try to increase cache quality and deal with the millions of caches now out there.  

 

For the most part I'm on your side.   Owners with high D/T caches are having to absorb a disproportionate amount of the issues caused by the CHS but that doesn't mean it's not making a positive impact.

 

I have yet to see the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this email actually benefit the cachers who find them.  In that regard, I believe it's not working as hoped.  Why should owners of higher D/T caches, who are usually, but not always, cachers who are invested in the game, bear a disproportionate amount of the issues and probably a large majority of the false positives, with no recourse to send an email to TPTB saying it was sent erroneously?  

 

As to what to do, I believe niraD posted the most logical solution.  How about we start off with the vast majority of caches (1.5/1.5 or something close) as the ones to target with this and exclude caches above a certain D/T.  Once that large majority of caches gets cleaned up or archived, then we can worry about the higher D/T caches.

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

Do you really think that there have been only two false positives where the "friendly" email reminder was sent when the logs indicated nothing wrong with the cache?

 

Not at all. You're just admitting that there is a difference between properly maintaining a cache and appeasing the CHS algorithm.

 

I don't think owners of caches visible to basic members should be expected to pop over just because someone logged a DNF either, but at least its easy for the owners of such caches to do so. The fact that it is non-trivial for owners of challenging caches to pop over just because someone logged a DNF illustrates the foolishness of expecting this behavior as part of proper cache maintenance.

If I had to guess I'd say there were many of these e-mails sent out and I'm sure some of them were false positives.  I'm just surprised that Coachstahly has only received two and that seems to be enough to send him/her off the deep end on the subject.    You keep talking as if just one dnf causes all this to happen.  Believe it or not I've had two dnf's on one of my caches at some point and never received anything from GS.         

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Also by doing something like this you're basically admitting that It's just too much of a pain to maintain caches with a high D/T,  and by owning one you're somehow exempt from  the rules that govern the rest of us. 

 

What?  Seriously?  If issues arise and it attracts the attention of a reviewer, it can still go through the archival process, just like all the rest of the caches out there.  I'm not saying that higher D/T caches don't have problems.  What I am saying is that there are FAR less of them to deal with so starting with a MUCH larger subset of caches with the likelihood of more problems seems to be the quickest way to address cache quality for the majority of the cachers that cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I have yet to see the vast majority of caches that would benefit from this email actually benefit the cachers who find them.  In that regard, I believe it's not working as hoped.  Why should owners of higher D/T caches, who are usually, but not always, cachers who are invested in the game, bear a disproportionate amount of the issues and probably a large majority of the false positives, with no recourse to send an email to TPTB saying it was sent erroneously?  

 

As to what to do, I believe niraD posted the most logical solution.  How about we start off with the vast majority of caches (1.5/1.5 or something close) as the ones to target with this and exclude caches above a certain D/T.  Once that large majority of caches gets cleaned up or archived, then we can worry about the higher D/T caches.

Just because you haven't' noticed it doesn't mean it isn't happening.    Have you ever been a reviewer?    We've had a few reviewers chime in on the subject and from what I gather it helps them do their job.   But I guess their testimony doesn't count because you personally haven't seen a benefit.  In fact you've been a victim of the negative aspect of the activity so it must be all bad right?     

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm just surprised that Coachstahly has only received two and that seems to be enough to send him/her off the deep end on the subject. 

 

Deep end?  Sorry to disappoint you.  The concept behind the CHS is to improve cache quality.  I've seen NO improvement in the cache quality in my area.  It's not horrible to begin with, but when roughly 30% of the caches closest to my home coordinates with a red wrench are 1.5/1.5s and nothing has been done to either clean them up (by the CO) or start the road to archival, then something isn't working, especially when a cache like mine, with NO NM logs and only DNFs, gets sent an email stating that something might be wrong, when I know there isn't anything wrong.  I realize the reviewer for our state is the one that starts that process, rather than the email, but there's been no progress in that regard.  Either he's too busy (a distinct possibility) or it's not high on the list of items GS wants him to focus on.  I do know that I've filed a NA log and he's summarily dispatched that one, so I know he's active when notified.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

What?  Seriously?  If issues arise and it attracts the attention of a reviewer, it can still go through the archival process, just like all the rest of the caches out there.  I'm not saying that higher D/T caches don't have problems.  What I am saying is that there are FAR less of them to deal with so starting with a MUCH larger subset of caches with the likelihood of more problems seems to be the quickest way to address cache quality for the majority of the cachers that cache.

The only difference is that the majority of cache owners can take a leisurely stroll and check up on their cache.    High D/T caches not so much.   In turn anything that may increase the chance of having to potentially visit the cache site (like the CHS)  is a bad thing.   I get it but we can't simply ignore potential cache issues just because it's inconvenient to check up on them.  That doesn't send the right message either.  So what else can be done?      

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, niraD said:

I'm surprised that you still think it's just about those two emails that coachstahly received.

What else is it about.   Big brother?  Power to the people?   If that's the argument than spare me.   This is a game and they make the rules.   If I don't like it I can pack up my things and go home.   I'm willing to live within their guidelines and I'm happy.   We all have a choice,  unfortunately some choose to complain.     

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

But I guess their testimony doesn't count because you personally haven't seen a benefit.  In fact you've been a victim of the negative aspect of the activity so it must be all bad right?

 

Wow.  In those reviewers' particular area it might be helping and that would be great.  Without caching in their respective areas, I can't see if the CHS is helping or not.  Nowhere did I say it must all be bad.  The concept has promise but I have no firsthand evidence (that I've seen with my own eyes when out caching) that it's improved the cache quality in the area in which I primarily cache.  My point is that I see all these red wrenches on simple caches (numbers hides), which are the vast majority of caches in my area, yet I'm getting the email, with no red wrench and only DNFs to show for it.  If the cache were a 1.5/1.5, you can bet I'd go check it if I got the email, but there's no way it would have gotten to that point, because I would have gone out on my own before it got to that point.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Just because you haven't' noticed it doesn't mean it isn't happening.    Have you ever been a reviewer?    We've had a few reviewers chime in on the subject and from what I gather it helps them do their job.   But I guess their testimony doesn't count because you personally haven't seen a benefit.  In fact you've been a victim of the negative aspect of the activity so it must be all bad right?     

 

Turning this around, you indicated earlier that you've never received one of the "friendly reminder" email message from the CHS, yet are perfectly willing to characterized those the may have received CHS email messages that are false positive, and merely wish that GS could improve the contents of the message and/or improve their algorithm to reduce the number of false positives as "going off the deep end".  

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

You keep talking as if just one dnf causes all this to happen.  Believe it or not I've had two dnf's on one of my caches at some point and never received anything from GS. 

 

As I've said many times, I got one as a result of just one DNF. Nothing else; the cache was only 7 weeks old. Max and 99 just reported getting one after one DNF that was followed by a find. I don't know why it's picking out certain caches that just have one DNF, but it's happened and is still happening.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I get it but we can't simply ignore potential cache issues just because it's inconvenient to check up on them.

 

How is there a potential cache issue if the person who logged the DNF has gone back and found it a few days later? What is the CO supposed to fix when he or she has made the long and possibly perilous journey to GZ in a situation like this? Most of the time DNFs don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache, particularly on tougher hides when there's a lot more ways to not find them. They are a terrible metric for cache health,  yet the CHS focuses on them and apparently ignores caches with long-standing NMs.

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

What else is it about. 

Just maybe, it's about the system that generated those two "friendly" reminder emails.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

This is a game and they make the rules. 

Sure. And when they make rules and develop systems that hurt the game, we need to let them know what's broken, otherwise there is no chance that they'll fix anything.

Link to comment

I'll just leave this here, as it's somewhat germane to the conversation at hand.  Thanks to Max

 

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.

 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Turning this around, you indicated earlier that you've never received one of the "friendly reminder" email message from the CHS, yet are perfectly willing to characterized those the may have received CHS email messages that are false positive, and merely wish that GS could improve the contents of the message and/or improve their algorithm to reduce the number of false positives as "going off the deep end".  

How many were not false positives?    The e-mail is obviously automatically triggered when a cache has reached some set of criteria right?   So there has to be something about the cache that should be looked at.   That's basically all the e-mail is asking the cache owner to do.  We can debate tweaking those criteria but the idea of the reminder e-mail isn't what some are making it out to be.  In other words it's not that big of a deal.   

Link to comment
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

As I've said many times, I got one as a result of just one DNF. Nothing else; the cache was only 7 weeks old. Max and 99 just reported getting one after one DNF that was followed by a find. I don't know why it's picking out certain caches that just have one DNF, but it's happened and is still happening.

If that's true than obviously something needs to be fixed.   Has anyone contacted their reviewer or GS for clarification?  

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If that's true than obviously something needs to be fixed.

 

That's what I've been trying to say for the last year and a half, but the problem is a fundamental one in that it's relying on DNF logs as its principal source of information and most DNF logs aren't due to a problem with the cache, particularly with tougher hides (D and T). And yes, I tried reporting it to HQ, as I'm sure others have done, but, well....

Link to comment
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

How is there a potential cache issue if the person who logged the DNF has gone back and found it a few days later? What is the CO supposed to fix when he or she has made the long and possibly perilous journey to GZ in a situation like this? Most of the time DNFs don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache, particularly on tougher hides when there's a lot more ways to not find them. They are a terrible metric for cache health,  yet the CHS focuses on them and apparently ignores caches with long-standing NMs.

IMO a dnfs should be included in calculating the overall health of a cache.   How much should they be counted is up for debate.   I think what gets lost here is that multiple dnf have always been a red flag.  Their original intent was to help determine if a cache was indeed missing.   If used properly it's useful information that shouldn't be dismissed.  

Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

IMO a dnfs should be included in calculating the overall health of a cache.   How much should they be counted is up for debate.   I think what gets lost here is that multiple dnf have always been a red flag.  Their original intent was to help determine if a cache was indeed missing.   If used properly it's useful information that shouldn't be dismissed.  

 

No, multiple DNFs should only be a red flag on very easy caches. Difficult caches should be getting multiple DNFs. A D5 traditional should almost only get DNFs.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, niraD said:

Just maybe, it's about the system that generated those two "friendly" reminder emails.

 

Sure. And when they make rules and develop systems that hurt the game, we need to let them know what's broken, otherwise there is no chance that they'll fix anything.

I don't see the system as broken.  maybe I've just been lucky or maybe it's something else.   In the past year I've received one piece of correspondence from GS and that was an e-mail telling me my premium membership was due to expire.   We can continue to complain and GS can tweak this thing until it's completely useless.  We can remove it from the game and go on complaining about how GS isn't doing anything about bad cache owners.  Or we can give it a chance to develop and see what happens.    It doesn't surprise me when someone says "I haven't seen any improvements" as if any one thing could effect something this big overnight.    There's nothing wrong with trying to improve ones one situation but at what cost?  

 

If you were telling me that your were receiving e-mails daily and GS was archiving caches based on one dnf I'd say we had a problem.  If your telling me we need to scrap the whole project because a few people received an e-mail or two they should have.....     

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, multiple DNFs should only be a red flag on very easy caches. Difficult caches should be getting multiple DNFs. A D5 traditional should almost only get DNFs.

I understand what your saying but giving D5 caches a pass isn't the right way to go.   Although I don't see why the D/T rating can't figure into how many dnfs a cache is allowed to have.     

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

I understand what your saying but giving D5 caches a pass isn't the right way to go.   Although I don't see why the D/T rating can't figure into how many dnfs a cache is allowed to have.     

 

So how many DNFs is a D5 allowed to have? It's an open book as the D rating can't go any higher. There are some that have hundreds of DNFs and have yet to be found, but they're not broken or missing, they're HARD CACHES by design. Even at lower ratings, there are other factors that come into it that won't affect DNF rates, like puzzle difficulty. And even then, no two D3 traditionals are likely to be the same or produce the same pattern of DNFs.

 

Take my own hides as an example. They're mostly T2.5 or higher and a fair number are D2 or higher. I've had something like 60 DNFs across them all, but only one was due to a missing cache. Another was technically still there but buried under a rockfall. For the rest, the cache was fine, it was just that the searcher didn't find it for whatever reason. Some have cited approaching storms, failing light, the presence of muggles, tired kids, no internet access, terrain too tough, others have just not seen it on their first attempt. DNFs are part of the game. We have an NM log for reporting that a cache might be missing, why can't that be used for its intended purpose?

Link to comment
16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So how many DNFs is a D5 allowed to have? It's an open book as the D rating can't go any higher. There are some that have hundreds of DNFs and have yet to be found, but they're not broken or missing, they're HARD CACHES by design. Even at lower ratings, there are other factors that come into it that won't affect DNF rates, like puzzle difficulty. And even then, no two D3 traditionals are likely to be the same or produce the same pattern of DNFs.

 

Take my own hides as an example. They're mostly T2.5 or higher and a fair number are D2 or higher. I've had something like 60 DNFs across them all, but only one was due to a missing cache. Another was technically still there but buried under a rockfall. For the rest, the cache was fine, it was just that the searcher didn't find it for whatever reason. Some have cited approaching storms, failing light, the presence of muggles, tired kids, no internet access, terrain too tough, others have just not seen it on their first attempt. DNFs are part of the game. We have an NM log for reporting that a cache might be missing, why can't that be used for its intended purpose?

I don't know.  Since you have a high D/T cache you tell me?   For me three dnfs prompts me to go take a look but again mine aren't overly difficult.   I also try to check up on my caches at least twice a year so I have a point of reference when someone posts a MN or DNF.  I realize that's not feasible for some of your caches and I wouldn't expect you to go running out for every dnf.     There has to be accountability for all caches and I do agree that it needs to be determined using a sliding scale.   Question is what's reasonable?        

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

How many were not false positives?    The e-mail is obviously automatically triggered when a cache has reached some set of criteria right?   So there has to be something about the cache that should be looked at.   That's basically all the e-mail is asking the cache owner to do.  We can debate tweaking those criteria but the idea of the reminder e-mail isn't what some are making it out to be.  In other words it's not that big of a deal.   

 

How many false positives?  There is no way for me (or you) to know that.

 

You're missing the point that reaching the criteria may be solely due to events which *don't* require anything to be looked at.

 

"It's not a big deal."   That's sort of like a rich person telling a poor person, that doesn't have enough money to put food on the table,  to stop complaining about being hungry.  If you've never received the automatically triggered email message how can you possible claim, with any authority, whether or not it's a big deal.

 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

How many false positives?  There is no way for me (or you) to know that.

 

You're missing the point that reaching the criteria may be solely due to events which *don't* require anything to be looked at.

 

"It's not a big deal."   That's sort of like a rich person telling a poor person, that doesn't have enough money to put food on the table,  to stop complaining about being hungry.  If you've never received the automatically triggered email message how can you possible claim, with any authority, whether or not it's a big deal.

 

I know what the e-mail says and I know what it's intended to do.  I don't need to get one to know how I'd react to it.     

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

Tell that to some of my more stubborn clients.<_<

I also have clients like that and 25 years of dealing with them has taught me that there's always common ground.  You just have to be willing to dig down to it and be ready to compromise when you get there.  I want them as a client and they want me as their vendor.  If that's the case we'll find a way to work it out.   It's probably the reason they've been clients for 25 years.;)         

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

that there's always common ground. 

I agree that there is (or should be) common ground.

55 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There's always a compromise that everyone can live with.

But whether they are willing to live with it is another matter. Good thing that there is always the judge who will make the decision for them if they can't compromise.

Now somebody make an analogy to get us back on topic.:P

Link to comment
1 minute ago, niraD said:

So why can't you live with a compromise that adds an option for false positives to the "friendly" reminder email?

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.   Why take the time to actually check up on a caches condition when you can push a button and make it all go away?   If the option involved some discussion between the owner and the reviewer,  I'd support that.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.   Why take the time to actually check up on a caches condition when you can push a button and make it all go away?   If the option involved some discussion between the owner and the reviewer,  I'd support that.  

Agreed! Although not mentioned in the current nudge-mail, such communication would likely pre-empt any threatening follow-on reviewer email like the example @coachstahly quoted above.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.   Why take the time to actually check up on a caches condition when you can push a button and make it all go away?   If the option involved some discussion between the owner and the reviewer,  I'd support that.  

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Edited by coachstahly
Adding quoted text
Link to comment
8 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't know.  Since you have a high D/T cache you tell me?   For me three dnfs prompts me to go take a look but again mine aren't overly difficult.   I also try to check up on my caches at least twice a year so I have a point of reference when someone posts a MN or DNF.  I realize that's not feasible for some of your caches and I wouldn't expect you to go running out for every dnf.     There has to be accountability for all caches and I do agree that it needs to be determined using a sliding scale.   Question is what's reasonable?        

 

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.

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

I know what the e-mail says and I know what it's intended to do.  I don't need to get one to know how I'd react to it.     

 

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?

Link to comment
3 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?

No no! I never got a reviewer note after a CHS note!!

I just copy and pasted from a cache that did get one. 

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment
10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.

I can live with that.

 

10 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If the option involved some discussion between the owner and the reviewer,  I'd support 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.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, niraD said:
16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Like I said before if you offer a way for people to do nothing, some will do just that.

I can live with that

 

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. 

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...
Followers 4
×
×
  • Create New...