Jump to content

CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.


fizzymagic

Recommended Posts

Here's  a cache that was archived as a result of the so-called "friendly" CHS email when it was in perfectly good shape. The CO is an active cacher and is good about maintaining his caches.  The cache in question is rather difficult to reach and is hard to find; it has a history of multiple DNFs between finds.

 

He got the email, saw the list of possible actions, and archived it.  It was still there and in good shape. The difficulty might be rated a little low, but otherwise this was a needless archive.

 

Please, please, please, could some text be added to the email explaining what to do in case of a false positive like this one?  Or maybe the CO's conclusion is correct.  He posted:

Quote

Groundspeak doesn‘t like challenging caches (as demonstrated by their past communications), so I now archive any cache when it gets a Needs Maintenence or DNF. Senseless values IMO.

 

IMO, if the CHS is causing perfectly good caches to be archived, then it needs some work.  My personal preference is for the email that is sent to be completely rewritten to actually be friendly, which is most definitely is NOT.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

Actually, rather than rewording some random email, which will make nobody happy, I'd rather see them make that particular metric public, like they do the favorite points. I'd guess that there's probably some legitimate concern regarding gaming the score (like that doesn't happen already), but if everything is visible on the Listing page, it would be pretty obvious to everyone what is going on, and have the option to call the CO out with an NA. 

 

Sorry to to see the CO take that action, but in the end it's up to them what they do with their Listing and cache. 

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Here's  a cache that was archived as a result of the so-called "friendly" CHS email when it was in perfectly good shape. The CO is an active cacher and is good about maintaining his caches.  The cache in question is rather difficult to reach and is hard to find; it has a history of multiple DNFs between finds.

 

He got the email, saw the list of possible actions, and archived it.  It was still there and in good shape. The difficulty might be rated a little low, but otherwise this was a needless archive.

 

Please, please, please, could some text be added to the email explaining what to do in case of a false positive like this one?  Or maybe the CO's conclusion is correct.  He posted:

 

IMO, if the CHS is causing perfectly good caches to be archived, then it needs some work.  My personal preference is for the email that is sent to be completely rewritten to actually be friendly, which is most definitely is NOT.

The CHS may need work but I find it very difficult to sympathize with a CO who says this: "With that said, I n response to any Needs Maintenence or most any DNF on my caches... I Archive. This cache now meets all requirements for being needlessly archived."

 

The cache was not NEEDLESSLY archived. I leave it to others to decide WHY is was archived. 

  • Upvote 7
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I think the CHS and the text of the "friendly" reminder that it triggers is only part of the problem. Other changes (whether initiated by Groundspeak or by the community) have also created an environment where challenging caches are discouraged. The CHS and its "friendly" reminder is just part of that overall environment.

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

I think the CHS and the text of the "friendly" reminder that it triggers is only part of the problem. Other changes (whether initiated by Groundspeak or by the community) have also created an environment where challenging caches are discouraged. The CHS and its "friendly" reminder is just part of that overall environment.

 

What? Groundspeak creating an environment where challenging caches are discouraged?  We're all supposed to be Adrenalin junkies, don't ya know?  Get out there and find yourself six of those extremely challenging 1/1 caches so you can be an official AJ!!  :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

The CHS may need work but I find it very difficult to sympathize with a CO who says this: "With that said, I n response to any Needs Maintenence or most any DNF on my caches... I Archive. This cache now meets all requirements for being needlessly archived."

Agreed!

 

As best as I can remember, I have received 2. I wished that I had kept them so that I can quote exactly, but I think the opening line was something like "There may be a problem with your cache." No threats, no deadlines, just some suggested courses of action (although not complete, as "do nothing" is an acceptable option). One cache, I knew needed work, but I had put off getting around to it; the other one didn't. On the first cache, I went out and fixed it and posted an OM; on the other cache, I just ignored the email as I knew the cache was in good shape. Nothing has happened since.n 

 

The email didn't seem "nasty" to me, and is certainly undeserving of the title "nastygram." Some have called "nag-mail," another undeserved title as there isn't continued notices or supposed harrassment. Be that as it may, many are completely offended at the suggestion, accurate or not, that "there may be a problem with your cache" and "here are some possible courses of action." And with that offense often comes the threat of committing self-geocide similar to "I'm taking my toys and going home."

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Hello Max and 99,

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. 

Thanks,
Geocaching HQ

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Christiansen said:

No threats, no deadlines, just some suggested courses of action (although not complete, as "do nothing" is an acceptable option).

 

In the Meet the Reviewers session at a mega earlier this year, we were told that "do nothing" isn't an acceptable option as that will flag the cache as having had no owner response when the reviewer comes to look at it. Their recommendation, in the case of a false positive when you know there's nothing wrong with the cache, is to log an OM explaining that.

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In the Meet the Reviewers session at a mega earlier this year, we were told that "do nothing" isn't an acceptable option as that will flag the cache as having had no owner response when the reviewer comes to look at it. Their recommendation, in the case of a false positive when you know there's nothing wrong with the cache, is to log an OM explaining that.

This still doesn't do anything to let the keepers of the CHS algorithm know about the false positive.

 

And the "friendly" reminder still doesn't mention that this is an option when there is a false positive.

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

that will flag the cache as having had no owner response when the reviewer comes to look at it.

Certainly, that would be true if there is something flaggable such as an unanswered NM. That would make the CHS email more likely. But since I am not privy to the algorithms, is the existence of an unanswered NM required before the email is triggered?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Team Christiansen said:

Certainly, that would be true if there is something flaggable such as an unanswered NM. That would make the CHS email more likely. But since I am not privy to the algorithms, is the existence of an unanswered NM required before the email is triggered?

 

No, most of the CHS emails that I've seen reported have been on caches with no history of NMs and just a small number of DNFs (sometimes even one will do it if it's a new cache with just one or two finds). The impression I got was that the sending of the email flags the cache to the reviewers if there's been nothing done to improve the cache's score.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, most of the CHS emails that I've seen reported have been on caches with no history of NMs and just a small number of DNFs (sometimes even one will do it if it's a new cache with just one or two finds). The impression I got was that the sending of the email flags the cache to the reviewers if there's been nothing done to improve the cache's score.

This has been my experience. The most frustrating to me is getting the email when the last log was a Found It, after one DNF! (not Mrs Wiggins)

Edited by Max and 99
Link to comment

 

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

No, most of the CHS emails that I've seen reported have been on caches with no history of NMs and just a small number of DNFs (sometimes even one will do it if it's a new cache with just one or two finds). The impression I got was that the sending of the email flags the cache to the reviewers if there's been nothing done to improve the cache's score.

That's what I had guessed. As such, why would an OM be necessary to prevent being flagged, if subsequent Found it logs have been posted. If the Found it logs cure the problem, then "do nothing" IS an acceptable option.

Edited by Team Christiansen
its late and I am misspelling like crazy!
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Team Christiansen said:

 

That's what I had guessed. As such, why would an OM be necessary to prevent being flagged, if subsequent Found it logs have been posted. If the Found it logs cure the problem, then "do nothing" IS an acceptable option.

 

From what Max and 99 just said, it appears a Found It doesn't wipe the slate after a DNF. There've been other similar cases reported where a cache was pinged even when the most recent log was a find. An OM log, on the other hand, apparently restores the cache's score to pristine.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Here's  a cache that was archived as a result of the so-called "friendly" CHS email when it was in perfectly good shape. The CO is an active cacher and is good about maintaining his caches.  The cache in question is rather difficult to reach and is hard to find; it has a history of multiple DNFs between finds.

 

He got the email, saw the list of possible actions, and archived it.  It was still there and in good shape. The difficulty might be rated a little low, but otherwise this was a needless archive.

 

Please, please, please, could some text be added to the email explaining what to do in case of a false positive like this one?  Or maybe the CO's conclusion is correct.  He posted:

 

IMO, if the CHS is causing perfectly good caches to be archived, then it needs some work.  My personal preference is for the email that is sent to be completely rewritten to actually be friendly, which is most definitely is NOT.

With 51 DNFs (those who bothered to log their DNF that is)  it's doubtful this cache is a mere 2 star difficulty. I wish people would rate their caches correctly. If they get a lot of DNFs it's feedback. It might appear easy to find for those who know where it is, ie. the CO, but obviously it isn't so easy for others.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

The CHS may need work but I find it very difficult to sympathize with a CO who says this: "With that said, I n response to any Needs Maintenence or most any DNF on my caches... I Archive. This cache now meets all requirements for being needlessly archived."

 

The cache was not NEEDLESSLY archived. I leave it to others to decide WHY is was archived. 

Some COs act like that when someone places a NM on their cache, even after months of DNFs, They are like the kid who gets all huffy and takes their ball home so no one can play with it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

With 51 DNFs (those who bothered to log their DNF that is)  it's doubtful this cache is a mere 2 star difficulty. I wish people would rate their caches correctly. If they get a lot of DNFs it's feedback. It might appear easy to find for those who know where it is, ie. the CO, but obviously it isn't so easy for others.

 

Looking through the DNFs, one of the most recent ones was due to there being no internet at GZ (hardly the CO's fault), one was blamed on fog and darkness and quite a lot said the area was flooded at the time they tried to search. If you take out all the weather-related and internet reception DNFs, it's probably reasonable for a D2 - there are lots of finds between the DNFs.

 

On my own hides I've had quite a few DNFs citing swarms of mosquitoes, approaching storms, failing light, no internet access (even though the cache page warns that there's no coverage anywhere in the area), muggles camped at GZ, too tough a climb and, most recently, a ferry that was about to leave so they had to cut short their search. I'm not sure how I can factor any of those into the difficulty rating.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Looking through the DNFs, one of the most recent ones was due to there being no internet at GZ (hardly the CO's fault), one was blamed on fog and darkness and quite a lot said the area was flooded at the time they tried to search. If you take out all the weather-related and internet reception DNFs, it's probably reasonable for a D2 - there are lots of finds between the DNFs.

 

On my own hides I've had quite a few DNFs citing swarms of mosquitoes, approaching storms, failing light, no internet access (even though the cache page warns that there's no coverage anywhere in the area), muggles camped at GZ, too tough a climb and, most recently, a ferry that was about to leave so they had to cut short their search. I'm not sure how I can factor any of those into the difficulty rating.

I didn't check the DNFs. I just presumed they had searched and not found it. If the way was blocked by flood water and they couldn't get to GZ, I don't classify that as a DNF. I would write a note stating I couldn't search. Unless one can search, I don't consider it a DNF, and I feel they should have just written a note. DNFs are also there to assist the CO, and if it was too dark to search, flood water stopped them getting to the area to search, they turned back because of mosquitoes without searching, etc, it does not assist the CO by logging a DNF, as the cache might be fine and not missing; they just didn't search. Log a note instead.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I didn't check the DNFs. I just presumed they had searched and not found it. If the way was blocked by flood water and they couldn't get to GZ, I don't classify that as a DNF. I would write a note stating I couldn't search. Unless one can search, I don't consider it a DNF, and I feel they should have just written a note. DNFs are also there to assist the CO, and if it was too dark to search, flood water stopped them getting to the area to search, they turned back because of mosquitoes without searching, etc, it does not assist the CO by logging a DNF, as the cache might be fine and not missing; they just didn't search. Log a note instead.

 

I gather it was actually the area at GZ that was flooded so I don't think it''s unreasonable to log a DNF under those circumstances. One of my hides is in a cave subject to flash flooding (the container's designed for that) and I'd expect someone to log a DNF if they abandoned their search because of that. Likewise, my earthcache is only accessible at low tide but someone logged a DNF when they misread the tide charts. Fair enough, he made the effort to get there but couldn't answer the questions because the geological feature was underwater.

 

A DNF isn't an NM, it's just a statement that the search ended without a signature in the logbook. Prior to the CHS it was just that, an informational log that didn't require any action from the CO. I think it's sad that it's now come to mean there's a problem with the cache and there's an expectation that we shouldn't log them if there isn't. But even so, people who don't read the forums will still log DNFs for things like darkness, floodwaters, mosquitoes, etc. and there's nothing the CO can do about it, unless there's now an expectation that we're supposed to delete all these "fake DNFs" on our hides.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

There was a recent case in California of a cache that had about a hundred finds and no DNFs. It was visited by a new cacher who, it was later discovered, was ten years old, meaning that he should not have had an account in the first place.  The cacher could not find the cache, and he clicked "report problem" and claimed that the cache was missing.  This triggered the algorithm and the cache was first disabled and then archived within 60 days, even though it had subsequent finds, and the only cacher who EVER couldn't find it was the newbie kid, because the owner evidently was no longer active or for some other reason didn't answer.  Apparently reports from other cachers that a cache is in great shape are useless.  If this doesn't change, classic challenges like the Original Fizzy Challenge and the Jasmer Challenge might soon be undoable, because they may rely on old caches that are being maintained by the community and not by the official owner and Groundspeak thinks this doesn't count.  It seems that discretion has been taken away from reviewers; in a sensible system a report from a cacher who has fewer than ten finds that a cache is missing would be ignored, in the absence of other reports.

 

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, not2b said:

If this doesn't change, classic challenges like the Original Fizzy Challenge and the Jasmer Challenge might soon be undoable, because they may rely on old caches that are being maintained by the community and not by the official owner and Groundspeak thinks this doesn't count.

Fizzy?  I don't understand that statement, as Fizzy is not date related.  Jasmer I can understand, but honestly, nothing lasts forever, and we all know the eventual outcome for that one.   In my area, the older caches are looked after by other people stepping up and  taking responsibility for the cache.  This idea of Community Maintenance is pretty laughable in my opinion.  The people tossing throwdowns have little or no knowledge of the original placement, and don't have any intention of taking on the ongoing task of checking on the cache.  If they did, the CHS would NEVER drop below whatever threshold they have set.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Fizzy?  I don't understand that statement, as Fizzy is not date related.  Jasmer I can understand, but honestly, nothing lasts forever, and we all know the eventual outcome for that one.   In my area, the older caches are looked after by other people stepping up and  taking responsibility for the cache.  This idea of Community Maintenance is pretty laughable in my opinion.  The people tossing throwdowns have little or no knowledge of the original placement, and don't have any intention of taking on the ongoing task of checking on the cache.  If they did, the CHS would NEVER drop below whatever threshold they have set.

You haven't done the Original Fizzy have you?

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

Link to first Fizzy Challenge:

 

https://coord.info/GC11E8N

 

Unless I'm missing something in the word "Original" in the context your are using it.

 

This is a point of some contention about that first Fizzy challenge:  it requires:

Quote

- All finds (except the Event and CITO Events) must be on caches that were published BEFORE this cache (to avoid "dummy caches" being listed just to meet the requirements)

 

Which is making it harder and harder as time goes by.  attempts to get Kealia to relax that requirement have been unsuccessful.

 

Back to the main point:  I believe that the CHS and associated emails are, probably unintentionally, discouraging the placement of more difficult caches and resulting in COs archiving their more difficult and/or inaccessible placements. A cache that requires a 2-day hike to reach is almost certainly not going to be maintained in as timely a manner as a park-and-grab urban hide. And because more difficult caches will receive more DNFs, they will be tagged as having problems more often.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment

Let's go ahead and parse that letter from HQ:

 

Quote

Hello Max and 99,

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:

 

"what sort of maintenance needs to be performed."  Implies that some action must be taken. The range of actions includes "anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container."  That is the range of permissible actions.  Doing nothing does NOT fall within that range.  Treating the notification as a false alarm and logging OM to reassure everything is OK does NOT fall within that range.

 

Quote
  • 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.

 

These three options are presented as the only possibilities.  Even though the line above technically says "here are a few options," the natural reading is that the list is complete. 

 

Quote

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

 

I am glad to see that there is a link to an article about the CHS and why these emails are sent.

 

Overall, the email is not a "friendly reminder."  It basically says that some action MUST be taken, and it constrains those actions in such a way that the only acceptable response that does not involve a physical visit to the cache in the near future is archival.

 

The email never, in any part, acknowledges that it could be a false positive.  Indeed, it does just the opposite, making the clear assumption that some action is required.  An email that requires you to respond is NOT a "friendly reminder," it is a threat, no matter how gently worded.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

That could mean that the last Found was a throwdown, or a DNF=Found It. 

 

Why did you jump to this notion that it's a throwdown or a DNF=Found it?  Why not give equal weight to both possibilities?

 

It could be a legitimate find.  It could be a throwdown/DNF=Found it.  It's a 50/50 possibility.

Link to comment
57 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

Why did you jump to this notion that it's a throwdown or a DNF=Found it?  Why not give equal weight to both possibilities?

 

It could be a legitimate find.  It could be a throwdown/DNF=Found it.  It's a 50/50 possibility.

Only the owner will know for sure. She can post an OM giving more detail about the legitimacy of the find. A find after a string of DNFs is not necessarily a find. So I see why GCHQ would prefer verification from the owner. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

The email never, in any part, acknowledges that it could be a false positive.  Indeed, it does just the opposite, making the clear assumption that some action is required.  An email that requires you to respond is NOT a "friendly reminder," it is a threat, no matter how gently worded.

 

I don't see this email as friendly or unfriendly, so take what I say next based on that knowledge.

 

While I agree with the tone and gist of what you say, I disagree that there is a mandated action required.  A reader could make that assumption (and many will), but it does NOT explicitly state action is required by the CO.   If you can show me specifically where the email states (not implies) action is required, then I'll jump on your bandwagon, but an inference on the readers' part and an implication on the speaker's part isn't the same as a mandated response, as stated by the sender of the email.  The ONLY word that meets that possible interpretation is "needs", in the first and second sentence.  However, the first sentence also contains the word "might".  I realize we're nitpicking here, but might (in the first sentence) implies that it might NOT need maintenance either.

 

The fact that this email could have been sent erroneously and that this email does NOTHING to address that possibility is the biggest problem I have with this email and that could certainly reinforce the notion that something must be done by the CO.  Including that in the bullet portion of the email would certainly alleviate some of the assumptions that this could require maintenance rather than it just being a suggestion to perform maintenance, as the three listed options certainly aren't the ONLY options at hand.

 

As to the threat, it doesn't threaten any repercussions for failure to do anything anywhere in this email.  Those of us experienced enough will understand that it might eventually move to the archival stage at some point, but there's nothing that specifies that's a possibility.  It's an implication only (and a natural inference for many of us) and the email certainly doesn't mention that as a possible outcome of inaction.  In fact, the email doesn't mention anything about inaction on the CO's part at all, which can reinforce the idea that action is required.

 

All signs within this email point to required action, but all signs are inferred by us or implied by them, not mandated. That's a significant point to understand.  I get what you're saying here but I think you've taken it one step further than what is written in this particular email.  It's not an explicit mandate to take action but it's written in such a manner that makes a reader believe action is required.  They're NOT the same, although that's a tough delineation to make and most readers probably won't understand the difference between the two.  And that last sentence is the reason why I think the email needs to be changed, in some manner, to clarify the point that maintenance is suggested, not required, and the possibility exists that this could be an email sent erroneously and provide a means for submitting a false positive so they can adjust the CHS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Only the owner will know for sure. She can post an OM giving more detail about the legitimacy of the find. A find after a string of DNFs is not necessarily a find. So I see why GCHQ would prefer verification from the owner. 

 

So you now believe that GS should send an email related to the CHS if they feel a find isn't valid?  I'm pretty sure that the algorithm can't take validity into account when it's calculating the health score of the cache.  It's a find or it isn't, within the program.  You're asking the program to take something into account that it can't do.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

Why did you jump to this notion that it's a throwdown or a DNF=Found it?  Why not give equal weight to both possibilities?

 

It could be a legitimate find.  It could be a throwdown/DNF=Found it.  It's a 50/50 possibility.

Only the owner will know for sure. She can post an OM giving more detail about the legitimacy of the find. A find after a string of DNFs is not necessarily a find. So I see why GCHQ would prefer verification from the owner.

 

On the roughly 60 DNFs I've had across my hides, not one of the subsequent finds has been a throwdown. It's not 50/50. The probability that the DNF was a false positive (i.e. the cache isn't missing) is far far greater than the probability that the next find is a throwdown, yet the CHS assumes the latter. In Max and 99's case, it wasn't even a string of DNFs, it was just one followed by a find that set it off. For my one that got pinged after one DNF, with the find a week later (by the same person who DNFed it) I was sent a photo of the cache showing my original label so it was clearly not a throwdown, yet I'm still expected to paddle out to the cache in dangerous conditions to verify that?

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

So you now believe that GS should send an email related to the CHS if they feel a find isn't valid?

 

No. Just saying that I understand why GS doesn't clear the CHS score after a "find" has been posted.

 

Although, these days, clearing the CHS score after an OM has been posted isn't accurate either since many owners post OMs which say "I'll go check the cache" and then never do.

Perhaps only reviewers or GS should clear the CHS after taking a look at the OM or subsequent find, but that's a LOT of work, automation is preferable.

Edited by L0ne.R
grammar
Link to comment
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Looking through the DNFs, one of the most recent ones was due to there being no internet at GZ (hardly the CO's fault), one was blamed on fog and darkness and quite a lot said the area was flooded at the time they tried to search. If you take out all the weather-related and internet reception DNFs, it's probably reasonable for a D2 - there are lots of finds between the DNFs.

 

On my own hides I've had quite a few DNFs citing swarms of mosquitoes, approaching storms, failing light, no internet access (even though the cache page warns that there's no coverage anywhere in the area), muggles camped at GZ, too tough a climb and, most recently, a ferry that was about to leave so they had to cut short their search. I'm not sure how I can factor any of those into the difficulty rating.

Looking through that COs other disabled and archived caches shows he has a very 'casual' attitude to cache maintenance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, MNTA said:

it can if the reviewers put them on a watch list 

 

That's different than the topic at hand.  This thread is about the CHS, not reviewers putting cachers on a watch list.  The CHS cannot and should not take reputation of a cacher into account.  There's no way to numerically factor that into the algorithm used to generate a CHS.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MNTA said:

it can if the reviewers put them on a watch list 

 

Although the CHS score can't take into account reputation, a review can.  The CHS score doesn't cause caches to be archived.  It does, however,  inform reviewers that a cache has been flagged as having a low CHS score, and the reviewer could consider account reputation in their decision for what, if anything, to do next.   However, if a reviewer considers that the account associated with the cache has a good record of maintaining their caches, even if the reviewer does nothing, it doesn't change the CHS score.  Only a OM log can do that.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
On 9/7/2018 at 7:46 PM, fizzymagic said:

Here's  a cache that was archived as a result of the so-called "friendly" CHS email when it was in perfectly good shape. The CO is an active cacher and is good about maintaining his caches.  The cache in question is rather difficult to reach and is hard to find; it has a history of multiple DNFs between finds.

 

He got the email, saw the list of possible actions, and archived it.  It was still there and in good shape. The difficulty might be rated a little low, but otherwise this was a needless archive.

 

Please, please, please, could some text be added to the email explaining what to do in case of a false positive like this one?  Or maybe the CO's conclusion is correct.  He posted:

 

IMO, if the CHS is causing perfectly good caches to be archived, then it needs some work.  My personal preference is for the email that is sent to be completely rewritten to actually be friendly, which is most definitely is NOT.

 

CO is being petulant IMO.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 9/7/2018 at 6:36 PM, Team Hugs said:

 

The CHS doesn't cause caches to be archived.   Only a person can archive caches.   (Except for the few reviewers who happen to be dogs.)

 

That doesn't change most of the rest of what you wrote.   Automated communications should be designed carefully and supportively.   Greater transparency with regard to how the CHS works might be desirable.   Caches with high degrees of difficulty ought to be treated differently than those with low degrees of difficulty.    

 

But let's be clear that the decision to archive this cache was made by the cache owner.

The nice thing about the combination of CHS automated emails and reviewers is that the reviewers have the final say putting the human touch in analysing the issues -- something an automated algorithm could never do.

That why I would never get up in arms about getting the email which to me is just a friendly reminder.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Gross overreaction to CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.

Fixed it for ya ;)

 

In this thread I have presented detailed arguments for why I don't think that the response was a massive overreaction.  Maybe you missed those posts.

 

Thanks for your input, though. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:
2 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Gross overreaction to CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.

Fixed it for ya ;)

 

In this thread I have presented detailed arguments for why I don't think that the response was a massive overreaction.  Maybe you missed those posts.

 

Thanks for your input, though. :rolleyes:

 

Read the whole thread - starting with the OP on the day it was posted.

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...