CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.

[+humboldt flier]

23 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Today is my lucky day! I now get to check on another cache only because Groundspeak just sent me an email.

 

Ohhhhhh, I feel THAT PAIN / CHAGRIN.  

 

Thrice courtesy of an unseasoned cacher.  i.e.: 7 finds, 16 finds, 18 finds.

 

Bwahhhhhhhh ... I couldn't find it, I did not get my entitled immediate gratification / participation trophy .... I will report it as missing needs archiving.

[+Max and 99]

50 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

 

Ohhhhhh, I feel THAT PAIN / CHAGRIN.  

 

Thrice courtesy of an unseasoned cacher.  i.e.: 7 finds, 16 finds, 18 finds.

 

Bwahhhhhhhh ... I couldn't find it, I did not get my entitled immediate gratification / participation trophy .... I will report it as missing needs archiving.

My favorite was the NA log from someone with ONE find on a cache in plain sight, visible from 50 feet away. Someone sent her a nice email to set her straight.  

[+fizzymagic]

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

 

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

 

Um, excuse me, but I am the OP. 

 

Your contributions continue to add nothing to the conversation.  If you have some solid reasoning for your claim of overreaction, you are welcome to post it.  If you have nothing to contribute but snark (along with a clear indication that you haven't read the thread) then thanks, but no thanks.

 

 

FWIW, I started this thread to keep another thread from going farther off-track.  The example I gave in the original post is by far not the only one in the last few months from around here, but it is the best documented and the clearest case of a cache with zero problems being flagged by the CHS.  The reaction of this cacher is by no means atypical.  I've been informally polling people in this area about the perceived CHS process.  Thei impressions are generally not exactly correct, but they all are quite similar.

 

People believe that once the CHS letter has been sent, an automatic process is started that will result in the cache being disabled and then archived if the prescribed corrective action is not taken.  They believe that HQ has a zero-tolerance policy: you either fix the cache that has gotten the CHS nastygram or else the process of compelled automatic archival will begin.

 

It doesn't matter whether these people are correct or not about the process:  it's what they believe, and it colors their view of the role of geocaching HQ, which is now perceived as an adversary.  I'm sorry that people don't want to believe that this is a pervasive perception, but in my experience it is.

Edited September 10, 2018 by fizzymagic

[+Goldenwattle]

16 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

 

"

8 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

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

 

Um, excuse me, but I am the OP.

 

Perhaps there might be confusion here the tense of 'read'?

Edited September 10, 2018 by Goldenwattle

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I've been informally polling people in this area about the perceived CHS process

 

And, I expect, putting them right at the same time so that, hopefully, they won't unnecessarily archive their caches?

 

2 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

It doesn't matter whether these people are correct or not about the process

 

Clearly it does though if only because this thread exists.

[+J Grouchy]

16 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

In this thread I have presented detailed arguments

 

Nah.  One post that wasn't particularly detailed.

 

Anyway, it's clearly an overreaction, going straight to "OHMYGODICANTBELIEVEGROUNDSPEAKWOULDSENDMETHISEMAILIHAVETOARCHIVEALLTHETHINGS!!"

You're claiming there is no middle ground, that rage-archiving isn't at least a little bit immature?

[+thebruce0]

20 hours ago, Team Christiansen said:

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.

 

This, absolutely.  The human factor is always the final step - whether it's a reviewer acting in their judgment and tasks, or cache owners who take actions with full understanding or not.

 

But if the argument presented is about the perception of the email to the general public, then I have to agree that it can and should still be fixed. Clearly the email is not as clear as it can be. (despite there being people who already have a beef with Groundspeak and take rage-actions against The Man in an attempt to make a point)

Nonetheless, there are stlil those who do not understand the process.

[+Team Microdot]

8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

People believe that once the CHS letter has been sent, an automatic process is started that will result in the cache being disabled and then archived if the prescribed corrective action is not taken.

 

So, in a state of panic at the prospect of their cache being archived they head Groundspeak off at the pass by... archiving the cache.

 

Can you see how that doesn't really look like a winning strategy?

[+redsox_mark]

9 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

People believe that once the CHS letter has been sent, an automatic process is started that will result in the cache being disabled and then archived if the prescribed corrective action is not taken.  They believe that HQ has a zero-tolerance policy: you either fix the cache that has gotten the CHS nastygram or else the process of compelled automatic archival will begin.

 

It doesn't matter whether these people are correct or not about the process:  it's what they believe, and it colors their view of the role of geocaching HQ, which is now perceived as an adversary.  I'm sorry that people don't want to believe that this is a pervasive perception, but in my experience it is.

 

I agree with this.   It is easy to say the COs are over-reacting, petulant, etc.    But I commonly see good cache owners getting CHS mails which they feel are unwarranted.. and most of the time they have a similar reaction - it annoys them.    Most of them just grumble (e.g. at events, or on social media) rather than archive, but still, the system is causing some bad feeling with good cachers.

 

When this happens, I always tell the cacher that they can ignore it if they feel it is unwarranted (at least until such time as a reviewer takes action).    But I feel the communication could be improved.   

 

It's an oversimplification; but my general view is that good cache owners don't need these emails, and bad ones generally ignore them.    

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Can you see how that doesn't really look like a winning strategy?

Some of these cache owners don't see a winning strategy, because they see an environment where challenging caches are discouraged, and they're going to be forced to archive them if they can't maintain them as though they were a P&G down the street.

 

And the counter-reaction is from cache seekers, who realize that some cache owners are archiving caches when they get DNF or NM logs, so they stop posting DNF or NM logs.

 

This "friendly" reminder is not promoting a culture of quality maintenance.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:35 PM, colleda said:

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

 

We're not sure that kid burgled that house on that day, but we know he's done it before, so let's prosecute.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

Some of these cache owners don't see a winning strategy, because they see an environment where challenging caches are discouraged

 

Really? Most COs can stretch having to maintain a cache often for months, sometimes years. It usually starts with notes in Found logs that something is in need of attention. Months later someone may log an NM. DNFs usually go for months and require several DNFs in a row before someone finally logs an NM. NAs may never happen. Eventually, maybe a reviewer might sweep and notice it. 

 

And if a reviewer notices, all a CO has to do is post a note saying they will go check it. Which gives the CO another month. And if it's the middle of winter and the CO can't get to it until spring most reviewers will let it stay disabled until Spring as long as there's feedback monthly that the CO is still active and monitoring the cache.

Edited September 10, 2018 by L0ne.R
grammar

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Really?

Really.

 

Again, the "friendly" reminder isn't the beginning of the situation. These COs are already perceiving an environment where challenging caches are discouraged. Then they get a "friendly" reminder when the online logs indicate no problem whatsoever, and they decide it is no longer worth "fighting city hall". They aren't interested in stretching out the NM-NA-OM dance for months/years. They aren't interested in visiting a remote location every time someone posts a DNF either.

[+Max and 99]

On 9/8/2018 at 2:34 AM, 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.

 

The Reviewer responses affirm this.

 

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.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

They aren't interested in stretching out the NM-NA-OM dance for months/years. They aren't interested in visiting a remote location every time someone posts a DNF either.

 

Generally, from my observation, most aren't interested in visiting that remote location ever again. Their form of maintenance was always going to be archival if anyone posted a DNF (that got noticed by a reviewer or CHS),  NM or NA. 

[+31BMSG]

8 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

 

The Reviewer responses affirm this.

 

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.

 

 

Maybe the reviewer should see the email before it's sent to the CO? I hid a 3/2.5 in July where I averaged the coordinates at least twice a day over a six day period and the reviewer notes reflected that. Between the publish date of 7/17 and 7/28 it received three DNF, two in one day by a pair of cachers traveling together. On 8/10 I received the email from HQ, checked the cache, and logged an OM on 8/11.

 

This is the discouraging part of the whole process, the day after I received the email I received notification for a cache on my watchlist where the cacher logged a find on their throwdown. I attempted this cache back in January and found only a tupperware container lid with a geocache sticker on it. I logged a DNF, a NM, and also sent a message to the CO. Since then the cache has had four more DNF and three more NM logs, at no time did the CO or reviewer post a note about the cache condition. To top it off on 9/6 the charter member CO logged a bogus OM thanking the previous cacher for the throwdown and stating "I’ll be sure to check the area and do a cleanup". It left me wondering why I even try.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

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.

 

So much for those who keep saying you can just ignore the CHS email. This is what happens if you do that.

 

Edit to add: two things that strike me from reading this:

• "I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email" implies an expectation from the reviewer that you must do something in response to the email. Ignoring it isn't an option even if you know it's a false positive.
• There's a requirement here for the CO to actually go and check on the cache, even if they've established by other means that there's nothing wrong with it (perhaps the CO has confirmed with the DNFer that they were looking in the wrong place, or the DNFer has gone back and found it, or the reason for the DNF had nothing to do with the state of the cache).

Perhaps the path of least resistance for the CO of a difficult-to-find cache that keeps getting its share of DNFs really is just to archive it.

Edited September 10, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+bflentje]

On 9/9/2018 at 5:16 PM, humboldt flier said:

 

Ohhhhhh, I feel THAT PAIN / CHAGRIN.  

 

Thrice courtesy of an unseasoned cacher.  i.e.: 7 finds, 16 finds, 18 finds.

 

Bwahhhhhhhh ... I couldn't find it, I did not get my entitled immediate gratification / participation trophy .... I will report it as missing needs archiving.

 

---.

Edited September 10, 2018 by bflentje

[+humboldt flier]

13 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Nah.  One post that wasn't particularly detailed.

 

Anyway, it's clearly an overreaction, going straight to "OHMYGODICANTBELIEVEGROUNDSPEAKWOULDSENDMETHISEMAILIHAVETOARCHIVEALLTHETHINGS!!"

You're claiming there is no middle ground, that rage-archiving isn't at least a little bit immature?

 

Perhaps you have a point, however, if you poke a bear, a dog orrrrrr "A HANGRY ME" a sufficient number of times folks will get a tad fired up.  

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Yes, the fact that there is an outstanding flag on a cache if the owner ignores the email is news (at least to me).  So ignoring the email doesn't too absolutely nothing. It still requires human intervention for anything to happen, and if flagged caches pile up then reviewers will want to follow up with such cache owners, regardless of any context, just to encourage them to clear the flag - whether by doing maintenance or posting the OM as a false positive. But the email is not the very end of the process.

It should be noted again though that posting an OM simply to clear the flag can come back to bite the CO if there actually is a problem with the cache but they insisted on not checking on it. That's always a risk.

 

Nonetheless, we now know that reviewers can see when a CO ignores the nudge email. Their judgment call at that point?  Who knows.

[+Hynz]

15 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Greetings from your Community Volunteer Reviewer,

<snip>

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.

 

 

Is it established that this mail was sent out without human interaction?

If the reviewer had a look at the situation and decided that this mail is justified then it could be perfectly in order IMVHO.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

17 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Generally, from my observation, most aren't interested in visiting that remote location ever again. Their form of maintenance was always going to be archival if anyone posted a DNF (that got noticed by a reviewer or CHS),  NM or NA. 

 

That sort of cache owner aren't the ones complaining about the CHS score and the "friendly email".   The CHS score and "friendly email" messages aren't an issue for them because they have no qualms about archiving a cache, and leaving the litter.  They can easily ignore the email message because the consequences (having the cache archived by a reviewer) aren't an issue to them.  

 

Those here  that are critical of the CHS,  most likely do maintain their caches, but don't want false positives dictating when they have to go out to check on their caches.   They likely have pride in their hides and have put some effort into creating a quality hide.  They care about NM logs and don't want their caches archived so now they either have to check on their caches every time there are a couple of DNFs or post an OM log even if they don't check on the cache.  

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

That sort of cache owner aren't the ones complaining about the CHS score and the "friendly email".   The CHS score and "friendly email" messages aren't an issue for them because they have no qualms about archiving a cache, and leaving the litter.  They can easily ignore the email message because the consequences (having the cache archived by a reviewer) aren't an issue to them.  

 

Not sure how you come to that conclusion.

 

Even if you're right (and I'm not convinced you are) the type of CO doesn't really matter one way or another in the context of the thread. The fact they've had an email and then immediately archived the cache makes them a suitable representative - willing or otherwise - for the OP's agenda.

[+justintim1999]

Disgruntled cacher who archived their own cache.  I'm wondering if the "contact" the owner references is the automated e-mail we've been hearing so much about.   If that's what pushed them over the cliff than I'd say they we're planning on jumping anyway.     I wish I could reference instances where the friendly e-mail reminder prompted owner action and actually saved a cache.  There has to be at least one instance out there.

[+justintim1999]

The other thing that stuck out to me about this cache was the number of dnf's.   133 finds, 51 dnf's.  This on a D2/T1 cache.   IMO somethings not right here.  Maybe the cache owner should have re-evaluated the D/T or the location.  May have avoided all this drama.  

Edited September 11, 2018 by justintim1999

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The other thing that stuck out to me about this cache was the number of dnf's.   133 finds, 51 dnf's.  This on a D2/T1 cache.   IMO somethings not right here.  Maybe the cache owner should have re-evaluated the D/T or the location.  May have avoided all this drama.  

 

I hadn't even looked at the cache in question but having now done so I think we can draw this thread to a tidy close on the basis of these words from the CO:

 

Quote

With that said, I n response to any Needs Maintenence or most any DNF on my caches... I Archive.

 

[+justintim1999]

1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

 

I hadn't even looked at the cache in question but having now done so I think we can draw this thread to a tidy close on the basis of these words from the CO:

 

 

In this case I think the system worked just fine.    

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In this case I think the system worked just fine.    

 

I would agree if only it prevented any further placements by this individual who not only can't be bothered to maintain their cache(s) but can't be bothered to collect the geolitter either.

[+frostengel]

21 hours ago, niraD said:

challenging caches are discouraged

 

I read this argument several times in this thread and I just think that it isn't true. I have several caches that are not easy and by no means quick grabs - so I do get that many found logs (and so many DNF logs at the same time). I have never had problems with the CHS.

 

Don't forget that the CHS also takes the difficulty and terrain rating into account. My caches are usually hard to do - and the rating does tell that. If you put a cache with 1.5 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - then it might be missing or perhaps the rating is not approriate?! In each cache you should take action! If you put a traditional with 4 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - smile and relax, it's just a D4! And the system knows it.

 

Usually cache owners get another month or more before a cache is archived by the system (or by a system error, who knows). In fact I do not want to have to visit any of my caches immediately now or tomorrow but one whole month should be enough to take a look, or, if someone else finds it, contact that cacher and find out about the current state to be able to log  a real "The cache is there."-OM-log.

 

If you are not able to visit your caches if it was necessary then perhaps you own to many caches? Or the caches are too distant to maintain them?

One should nor forget that creating a geocache is not only putting the container out but to do the upcoming maintenance. Some people tend to forget...

 

Jochen

[+justintim1999]

17 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

I read this argument several times in this thread and I just think that it isn't true. I have several caches that are not easy and by no means quick grabs - so I do get that many found logs (and so many DNF logs at the same time). I have never had problems with the CHS.

 

Don't forget that the CHS also takes the difficulty and terrain rating into account. My caches are usually hard to do - and the rating does tell that. If you put a cache with 1.5 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - then it might be missing or perhaps the rating is not approriate?! In each cache you should take action! If you put a traditional with 4 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - smile and relax, it's just a D4! And the system knows it.

 

Usually cache owners get another month or more before a cache is archived by the system (or by a system error, who knows). In fact I do not want to have to visit any of my caches immediately now or tomorrow but one whole month should be enough to take a look, or, if someone else finds it, contact that cacher and find out about the current state to be able to log  a real "The cache is there."-OM-log.

 

If you are not able to visit your caches if it was necessary then perhaps you own to many caches? Or the caches are too distant to maintain them?

One should nor forget that creating a geocache is not only putting the container out but to do the upcoming maintenance. Some people tend to forget...

 

Jochen

Right on!   And a simple note on the cache page outlining your intentions usually buys you even more time if you need it.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that people think GS and reviewers are out to get them.

 

Mushrooms like the dark.  Reviewers don't.

 

At least I don't think they do???? 

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, frostengel said:

Don't forget that the CHS also takes the difficulty and terrain rating into account. My caches are usually hard to do - and the rating does tell that. If you put a cache with 1.5 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - then it might be missing or perhaps the rating is not approriate?! In each cache you should take action! If you put a traditional with 4 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - smile and relax, it's just a D4! And the system knows it.

 

My cache that was pinged after just one DNF was a T5, so I really doubt it's taking much account of terrain.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My cache that was pinged after just one DNF was a T5, so I really doubt it's taking much account of terrain.

 

In fairness and as has been said many times since - that was early days.

 

I expect appropriate adjustments have been made since.

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

My cache that was pinged after just one DNF was a T5, so I really doubt it's taking much account of terrain.

 

In fairness and as has been said many times since - that was early days.

 

I expect appropriate adjustments have been made since.

 

In fairness it was eighteen months after the inception of the CHS so it was hardly early days. I was also told by many that being pinged because of just one DNF was "early days teething troubles" yet here we are, another eighteen months on, and caches are still being pinged because of just one DNF. It's even worse now; they're being pinged after one DNF that's followed by a find!

[+fizzymagic]

7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

In this case I think the system worked just fine.    

 

Let me make sure I understand you:  you consider archival of perfectly good caches with no maintenance issues "working just fine."

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

My cache that was pinged after just one DNF was a T5, so I really doubt it's taking much account of terrain.

 

I can't look at the actual guidelines as geocaching.com is down or maintenance but it should still be something like posted here:

I hope the embadding will work....

So terrain rating should be envolved but probably a higher difficulty rating "allows" more DNFs and a higher terrain rating only allows longer times without finds.

 

As usually those algorithms probably work best for traditional caches, I think: a difficulty 4 traditional should be allowed to have some DNFs while an unknown cache of the same difficulty usually has an easy to find finale so should not get the DNFs. So maybe it is the same problem with the clayjar system only working well with traditional caches...

 

Jochen

[+JL_HSTRE]

23 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

• "I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email" implies an expectation from the reviewer that you must do something in response to the email. Ignoring it isn't an option even if you know it's a false positive.
• There's a requirement here for the CO to actually go and check on the cache, even if they've established by other means that there's nothing wrong with it (perhaps the CO has confirmed with the DNFer that they were looking in the wrong place, or the DNFer has gone back and found it, or the reason for the DNF had nothing to do with the state of the cache).

 

If the CO posted on the cache page a short explanation of why they don't think checking the cache is warranted yet does this, at Reviewer discretion, constitute an adequate response?

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, frostengel said:

As usually those algorithms probably work best for traditional caches, I think: a difficulty 4 traditional should be allowed to have some DNFs while an unknown cache of the same difficulty usually has an easy to find finale so should not get the DNFs. So maybe it is the same problem with the clayjar system only working well with traditional caches...

Perhaps a D4 puzzle "usually has an easy to find finale", but that isn't always the case. One of my Favorites had a relatively easy puzzle in the cache description, and the high difficulty rating was based entirely on the challenge of finding the cache in the field. Any automated system must accommodate both cases gracefully.

Edited September 12, 2018 by niraD

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, frostengel said:

As usually those algorithms probably work best for traditional caches, I think: a difficulty 4 traditional should be allowed to have some DNFs while an unknown cache of the same difficulty usually has an easy to find finale so should not get the DNFs. So maybe it is the same problem with the clayjar system only working well with traditional caches...

 

Even a D1 can get some DNFs. Have you ever not found an easy cache? Maybe there were too many muggles about, or you were in a hurry, or your preconception was wrong and you just couldn't see it even though it's obvious to everyone else? I know I have, many times. Any cache can and will get some DNFs without there being anything wrong with it. A properly rated D4 traditional ought to be getting more DNFs than finds.

[+frostengel]

28 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Even a D1 can get some DNFs. Have you ever not found an easy cache?

 

I am almost sure that I have had more DNFs at D1 caches (or at caches listed D1) buit then any other difficulty rating. It is the most dangerous rating for me. :-) [But probably it is just that D1 caches appear to be urban and therefore appear to be missing more often!?]

 

So that tells me that of course and hopefully the algorithm will never decide by itself. But if I'd put an automated tool helping the reviewers I  would  take some assumptions:

- a D1 rated traditional should be easier to find than a D4

- a D4 mystery should not count as high as a D4 traditional concerning the final

The latter is of course not true in any case - but surely more often. (By the way I often found unknown caches with a simple riddle and a hard(er) final - they are listed D1 as the riddle is so easy forgetting that it is both, solving and searching.)

 

I think there is no perfect system. One problem is that (at least here in Germany) many cachers don't want to log their DNFs. If I have a long search and try to conclude from the logs (all founds ;-)) if the cache might be missing I usually look at the time gaps between the founds: found seven times in July, once on August 2. and then there was no found until today? Okay the cache gets visited quite often so perhaps there are unlogged DNFs in August and September. That works quite well - but only for caches that are regularly found (or not found :-)).

 

Works for me but does it work for a machine?

 

Jochen

[+justintim1999]

14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Let me make sure I understand you:  you consider archival of perfectly good caches with no maintenance issues "working just fine."

I consider archiving a cache by an owner that's clearly belligerent and thinks that the rules don't apply to them is a good thing. 

[+Goldenwattle]

21 hours ago, frostengel said:

 

I read this argument several times in this thread and I just think that it isn't true. I have several caches that are not easy and by no means quick grabs - so I do get that many found logs (and so many DNF logs at the same time). I have never had problems with the CHS.

 

Don't forget that the CHS also takes the difficulty and terrain rating into account. My caches are usually hard to do - and the rating does tell that. If you put a cache with 1.5 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - then it might be missing or perhaps the rating is not approriate?! In each cache you should take action! If you put a traditional with 4 difficulty stars out and some people do not find it - smile and relax, it's just a D4! And the system knows it.

 

Usually cache owners get another month or more before a cache is archived by the system (or by a system error, who knows). In fact I do not want to have to visit any of my caches immediately now or tomorrow but one whole month should be enough to take a look, or, if someone else finds it, contact that cacher and find out about the current state to be able to log  a real "The cache is there."-OM-log.

 

If you are not able to visit your caches if it was necessary then perhaps you own to many caches? Or the caches are too distant to maintain them?

One should nor forget that creating a geocache is not only putting the container out but to do the upcoming maintenance. Some people tend to forget...

 

Jochen

Maybe this will make COs who rate ALL their caches 1.5 or lower reconsider , regardless of difficulty and terrain. If they correctly increased the difficulty and terrain, maybe they would not get as many letters to go check it.

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe this will make COs who rate ALL their caches 1.5 or lower reconsider , regardless of difficulty and terrain.

 

I think this is a problem in the system - Groundspeak shouldn't give a pre-entered rating proposal but force anyone to select her or his own rating. That's why there are so many caches listed 1.5/1.5 that aren't...

 

Sorry, that is offtopic but my proposal for GS...

 

Jochen

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

I think this is a problem in the system - Groundspeak shouldn't give a pre-entered rating proposal but force anyone to select her or his own rating. That's why there are so many caches listed 1.5/1.5 that aren't...

 

Sorry, that is offtopic but my proposal for GS...

 

Jochen

With some people, this is not accidental. They choose to only rate their caches 1.5 stars. I see it as sort of a (empty) statement/protest.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I consider archiving a cache by an owner that's clearly belligerent and thinks that the rules don't apply to them is a good thing. 

Where is the rule that says that the CO has to check on a cache every time a DNF is logged?

 

When the "friendly" reminder sent by the CHS is clearly in error, I don't think it's belligerent or presumptuous to think that visiting the cache location is pointless. And since the only other option offered by the "friendly" reminder is to archive the cache...

 

If that is not the message that Groundspeak intended to communicate, then perhaps the fault lies in Groundspeak's communication.

[+justintim1999]

2 minutes ago, niraD said:

Where is the rule that says that the CO has to check on a cache every time a DNF is logged?

 

When the "friendly" reminder sent by the CHS is clearly in error, I don't think it's belligerent or presumptuous to think that visiting the cache location is pointless. And since the only other option offered by the "friendly" reminder is to archive the cache...

 

If that is not the message that Groundspeak intended to communicate, then perhaps the fault lies in Groundspeak's communication.

There is no rule other than your own conscience.   I wouldn't expect this owner to run out and check up on the cache over one dnf.  I would expect them to handle the situation responsibly.  Why wait to archive?  I'd rather they just did it rather than threaten me with the idea.  I find the mind set more troubling than the e-mail.      

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Why wait to archive?  I'd rather they just did it rather than threaten me with the idea.     

 

Couldn't agree more.

[+justintim1999]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

With some people, this is not accidental. They choose to only rate their caches 1.5 stars. I see it as sort of a (empty) statement/protest.

If some people are artificially keeping the T/D low for what ever reason you're inviting more dnf's.   They shouldn't be outraged by receiving "the e-mail"  they should be expecting it.

[+not2b]

As it stands, if the algorithm ever triggers and the CO does not respond in 60 days, the cache goes away, even if the cache is in pristine condition as reported by the most recent finders.  Someone in this thread made the suggestion that if someone posts a "report problem: cache is missing" and a subsequent user posts a "Found It" there is a 50/50 chance that the subsequent find is a throwdown, so it is appropriate to disregard "found it" logs, the owner must personally check, because for some reason some random person who made the problem report is more trustworthy than any number of other cachers.

 

Here's an idea: add a "report that there is no problem" box.  This would be a way to allow subsequent finders to say that, despite the previous report, the reported problem no longer exists.  For example, someone reported that the cache is missing, and I found it.  Someone reported a wet log, and I find a dry log.  Someone is putting out a replacement with the permission of the owner.  Let the community assist in checking on the condition of the caches, so HQ has more accurate information.

 

Could this be abused?  The present system is being abused!  For example,  a cacher really wants to hide a cache that is within 100 feet of an existing cache, which is in decent shape but has an inactive owner.  Easy!  Report that it is broken and wait 60 days.

 

[+L0ne.R]

4 minutes ago, not2b said:

The present system is being abused!  For example,  a cacher really wants to hide a cache that is within 100 feet of an existing cache, which is in decent shape but has an inactive owner.  Easy!  Report that it is broken and wait 60 days.

 

Every system since the beginning of geocaching has been abused (it's been an eye-opening and disheartening human behavior observation for me). The abuse has increased exponentially with the rise in the number of cache hides. Especially since the floodgates to power trail style caching was opened.

 

Most COs only pay lip service to the maintenance guidelines. If it's OK for PTs it's OK whenever a CO hides more than can be reasonably maintained. They place caches and never go back.

 

The rise of bogus OM logs is increasing in the last year. Since the CHS, half the time when I post an NM, and if the owner is still active, they post an OM saying they'll check the cache, then never do.   It seems unethical CO behavior--gaming/abusing the system--is preferred to visiting the cache occasionally. 

Maintain geocache container

To keep the geocache in proper working order, the cache owner must

• Visit the geocache regularly.
• Fix reported problems (such as replace full or wet logbook, replace broken or missing container).
• Make sure the location is appropriate and change it if necessary.
• Remove the geocache container and any physical stages within 60 days after the cache page is archived.

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#ownerresponsibility 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

IMO, the CHS algorithm will always have a significant number of false positives. The main reason is that the algorithm does not know why a DNF happened. A distant second is that there is no published feedback mechanism to try and adjust the algorithm to reduce the false positives. If the main goal of the CHS is to include all caches that actually have a problem, the amount of false positives will be huge. When tweaks are made to the CHS algorithm, the amount of false positives should be reduced, at the expense of some problem caches slipping through. Where does GS draw the line? (This also brings up a second question, does GS have a method to determine if the CHS system is actually making a difference? But, that is a different question, and there is thread somewhere on this forum that discusses that point.)

 

My suggestion is to gather more data on the why by expanding the number of log types. What if we split off some of the reasons for a DNF into new log types? As has been mentioned previously, sometimes people get to GZ, and they don't search because of external factors, such as weather, muggles, underwater, etc. So, if we added a CNS (Could Not Search) log type, the algorithm would have better data, which should reduce the false positives. 

 

Adding a feedback mechanism would be a bit more difficult. If a check box for no action needed was added to an OM log, the CO would have a means of letting the system know that this is a possible false positive. If this cache continues to trigger the CHS letter, and the CO continues to check the box, GS (or a reviewer) can get involved and work with the CO to determine why the CHS keeps triggering on this cache. GS could add a new, hidden log type (for their use, including reviewers) that they could add that would signal to the algorithm that this cache has a higher number of DNF's than normal. Kind of a CHS override for this cache type option.