CHS notifications causing archival of good caches.

[+cerberus1]

7 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

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. 

 

I'd be okay with that or similar option...

When we're seeing DNF because they couldn't figure how to get to GZ to even look, and one recently, because they had to head back for a bathroom, "Could Not Search" (or similar) would have been a better option.   For those people.

The issue really is because some people believe those are reasons for a DNF.

Instead of simply leaving a Write Note (if they really feel they have to say something...) ,  "Could Not Search" just might be enough for those who don't understand they didn't even look for it.

[+Team Microdot]

I wish we could capture all the energy wasted on this thread and do something useful with it instead.

[+frostengel]

5 hours ago, not2b said:

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.

 

I don't know - for me communication is the key. If someone gets such a CHS mail I think she or he has to do anything and not just wait and hope somebody else takes care and checks any box.

If someone logged a "found it" at a cache of mine that had a low CHS because of DNFs I would contact that cacher and as soon as he says that he found my original cache and everything is in order I would post an owner maintenance log saying "Cache was checked by ..... Thank you!" to improve the score.

 

Talking to someone and writing an OM log - that is not too much to do and I don't have to leave the house then. It's the same with the wet logbook that is dry again and in the third case I should know: if someone puts out a replacement with my permission I'd always write an OM in any case, saying that the cache is new and thank the other cachers.

 

I would not wait and hope for that cacher to use any check box. In fact if others could say that my cache is good again then probably they would do if they make a throwdown or a new logpaper without my permission. And that is something that I want to know - and not sit at home thinking everything was fine though it is not!

 

I am responsible for my own cache but that does not mean that I can't use the help of others - but I want to know what's going on there and not rely on others that I haven't talked to!

 

Jochen

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'd be okay with that or similar option...

When we're seeing DNF because they couldn't figure how to get to GZ to even look, and one recently, because they had to head back for a bathroom, "Could Not Search" (or similar) would have been a better option.   For those people.

The issue really is because some people believe those are reasons for a DNF.

Instead of simply leaving a Write Note (if they really feel they have to say something...) ,  "Could Not Search" just might be enough for those who don't understand they didn't even look for it.

There will always be people that will select the wrong option. (How many pages is the Found = DNF thread?  ) What I was trying to come up with was a quick, easy to understand phrase that is quickly understood, and that people would actually use. I thought about Did Not Search, but I could envision some cachers seeing a negative connotation associated with that phrase. Could Not Search implies that circumstances beyond the cachers control was the reason, and therefore it shouldn't have a negative connotation.  In addition, if the Log screen on the site/app placed Could Not Search before Did Not Find, this might help with usage. Make sure that the cacher knows that Could Not Search is a choice.

 

Are there other changes that could be made that would make Could Not Search more meaningful to the cacher? DNF does turn a cache into a frowny face on the map. Write Note does not. Would people use a 'Could Not Search' log if it was highlighted someone in the system? Maybe a different color frowny face, or an entirely new symbol. Would that be useful to someone? Would it affect their decision on whether or not to try for the cache at a later date?

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

4 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

I don't know - for me communication is the key. If someone gets such a CHS mail I think she or he has to do anything and not just wait and hope somebody else takes care and checks any box.

If someone logged a "found it" at a cache of mine that had a low CHS because of DNFs I would contact that cacher and as soon as he says that he found my original cache and everything is in order I would post an owner maintenance log saying "Cache was checked by ..... Thank you!" to improve the score.

 

Talking to someone and writing an OM log - that is not too much to do and I don't have to leave the house then. It's the same with the wet logbook that is dry again and in the third case I should know: if someone puts out a replacement with my permission I'd always write an OM in any case, saying that the cache is new and thank the other cachers.

 

I would not wait and hope for that cacher to use any check box. In fact if others could say that my cache is good again then probably they would do if they make a throwdown or a new logpaper without my permission. And that is something that I want to know - and not sit at home thinking everything was fine though it is not!

 

I am responsible for my own cache but that does not mean that I can't use the help of others - but I want to know what's going on there and not rely on others that I haven't talked to!

 

Jochen

I meant that the checkbox would be on an OM log. So, the cacher is not checking the box, the CO is. The problem is where an OM is posted, and CHS continues to flag the cache. We need a feedback mechanism to be able to tune the CHS algorithm. A second routine would be run that would list caches that the CHS algorithm flagged a number of times, and each time the CO posted an OM, with the 'no problem with the cache' checkbox checked. At that time, GS or a reviewer could get involved to try and determine why this cache is continuously being flagged when there is no problem. GS could use this information to try and tune the CHS algorithm.

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

There will always be people that will select the wrong option. (How many pages is the Found = DNF thread?  ) What I was trying to come up with was a quick, easy to understand phrase that is quickly understood, and that people would actually use. I thought about Did Not Search, but I could envision some cachers seeing a negative connotation associated with that phrase. Could Not Search implies that circumstances beyond the cachers control was the reason, and therefore it shouldn't have a negative connotation.  In addition, if the Log screen on the site/app placed Could Not Search before Did Not Find, this might help with usage. Make sure that the cacher knows that Could Not Search is a choice.

 

Are there other changes that could be made that would make Could Not Search more meaningful to the cacher? DNF does turn a cache into a frowny face on the map. Write Note does not. Would people use a 'Could Not Search' log if it was highlighted someone in the system? Maybe a different color frowny face, or an entirely new symbol. Would that be useful to someone? Would it affect their decision on whether or not to try for the cache at a later date?

 

Can I offer an alternative suggestion? How about we leave the DNF as the all-encompassing "I didn't find it today" for whatever reason, with the blue frowny on the map as a reminder to maybe try again another time, and don't try to infer any maintenance issues from that. Instead, how about a different log that says, "I think there might be a problem with this cache, could the owner please check on it?" Oh wait, we already have that, don't we? If there's a problem with people being reluctant to use NM logs, or not understanding how they work, surely that's the problem that needs to be addressed rather than trying to find ways to infer maintenance issues from DNF logs.

 

I'd be a lot happier with the CHS if it focussed its efforts on chasing up ignored NMs rather than second-guessing DNFs and assuming any find after a DNF must be a throwdown.

[+frostengel]

2 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I meant that the checkbox would be on an OM log.

 

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't quote you but user "not2b" who wants to have the finders use the "it's okay" check box. So I wanted to explain why I do not like that solution - which is completely different from yours.

 

Sorry if that was misunderstandable... Too many check box suggestions here. :-)

 

Jochen

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

2 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't quote you but user "not2b" who wants to have the finders use the "it's okay" check box. So I wanted to explain why I do not like that solution - which is completely different from yours.

 

Sorry if that was misunderstandable... Too many check box suggestions here. :-)

 

Jochen

No worries! I read too fast on your response.

[+humboldt flier]

Siiiiggghhhhhhh,  I had a rough time with a cache yesterday and here is my log.

 

Dear Cache, Dear Cache, Dear Cache, What a gorgeous day for caching. The sky is a radiant cobalt blue. The Great Golden Orb is chugging along from its den in the east and has got the temperatures up to a whopping 57º. After a wonderful repast of fish-n-chips and a short libation and more caching we wandered back to see about you. Our second roll-up revealed an empty parking area and not a single cookie crumbler nor their parental units in sight. 28.5 minutes of poking, prodding, muttering, glowering and grumbling left us with the same thoughts (WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH FUN). Sooooooo, with shattered spirits and gloom upon our countenances we departed the area (IN TOTAL DISGRACE). Thanks for the fun. Thanks for the leg stretch. Thanks for the crinks in the backs, necks and fingers. Many Thanks to your owner for having placed you. TFT-HUNT

 

A few experienced cachers have had difficulty with this ... "dollars to donuts" some inexperienced / unseasoned cacher will post an NM / NA log before long.  The CO is rapidly developing AND being appreciated for "devious hide"

 

A perfectly sound / health cache will get flagged.

 

Tick, tick, tick, tick soooooooooooon it will get dinged ... I can feel it in my bones.   

 

 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

14 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Can I offer an alternative suggestion? How about we leave the DNF as the all-encompassing "I didn't find it today" for whatever reason, with the blue frowny on the map as a reminder to maybe try again another time, and don't try to infer any maintenance issues from that. Instead, how about a different log that says, "I think there might be a problem with this cache, could the owner please check on it?" Oh wait, we already have that, don't we? If there's a problem with people being reluctant to use NM logs, or not understanding how they work, surely that's the problem that needs to be addressed rather than trying to find ways to infer maintenance issues from DNF logs.

 

I'd be a lot happier with the CHS if it focussed its efforts on chasing up ignored NMs rather than second-guessing DNFs and assuming any find after a DNF must be a throwdown.

IMO, the organization of geocaching presents a number of challenges. The first is that this is almost entirely a volunteer based hobby. They can only dictate 'quality' in very general terms, and they cannot make demands that a large number of volunteers would find objectionable. The volunteers can leave anytime they want, and they don't have to clean up the mess they might leave behind. GS has to attract new cachers to continue the revenue stream, and they have to be responsive to land managers in order to keep geocaching in their good graces. 

It is my understanding that the CHS was developed by GS to improve the overall quality of existing caches to try to meet these competing goals and requirements. They don't want deteriorated caches littering the landscape. My point is that the cachers did not ask for the CHS, GS implemented it to meet their own goals.

 

I completely agree, the problem is one of training. But what would it take to get cachers to use the correct logs? GS has two messaging systems, neither of which is guaranteed to reach anyone. Not to mention all of the different languages used by the caching community. IMO, coming up with a training program for all cachers would be cost prohibitive for this hobby.

 

The old adage is, garbage in, garbage out. The DNF log type is the garbage into the algorithm. It has too many definitions to be useful in a computer algorithm. Unfortunately, the garbage out is falling on the CO's. If we want less garbage out, we need to to put less garbage in. 

[+humboldt flier]

1 minute ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

IMO, the organization of geocaching presents a number of challenges. The first is that this is almost entirely a volunteer based hobby. They can only dictate 'quality' in very general terms, and they cannot make demands that a large number of volunteers would find objectionable. The volunteers can leave anytime they want, and they don't have to clean up the mess they might leave behind. GS has to attract new cachers to continue the revenue stream, and they have to be responsive to land managers in order to keep geocaching in their good graces. 

It is my understanding that the CHS was developed by GS to improve the overall quality of existing caches to try to meet these competing goals and requirements. They don't want deteriorated caches littering the landscape. My point is that the cachers did not ask for the CHS, GS implemented it to meet their own goals.

 

I completely agree, the problem is one of training. But what would it take to get cachers to use the correct logs? GS has two messaging systems, neither of which is guaranteed to reach anyone. Not to mention all of the different languages used by the caching community. IMO, coming up with a training program for all cachers would be cost prohibitive for this hobby.

 

The old adage is, garbage in, garbage out. The DNF log type is the garbage into the algorithm. It has too many definitions to be useful in a computer algorithm. Unfortunately, the garbage out is falling on the CO's. If we want less garbage out, we need to to put less garbage in. 

 

GI-Go for sure

[+barefootjeff]

4 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

It is my understanding that the CHS was developed by GS to improve the overall quality of existing caches to try to meet these competing goals and requirements. They don't want deteriorated caches littering the landscape. My point is that the cachers did not ask for the CHS, GS implemented it to meet their own goals.

 

At the time the CHS was created (mid 2015), you couldn't log an NM (or NA) on the app. Perhaps its reliance on DNF logs was done as a workaround for that. But that's now changed, as logging NMs was added to the app in February 2017. Maybe it needs further improvement to encourage better use (the only time I use the app for logging is in a FTF race and have never used that funtion on it) but perhaps it's time for a rethink of the CHS strategy.

[+MNTA]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Can I offer an alternative suggestion? How about we leave the DNF as the all-encompassing "I didn't find it today" for whatever reason, with the blue frowny on the map as a reminder to maybe try again another time, and don't try to infer any maintenance issues from that. Instead, how about a different log that says, "I think there might be a problem with this cache, could the owner please check on it?" Oh wait, we already have that, don't we? If there's a problem with people being reluctant to use NM logs, or not understanding how they work, surely that's the problem that needs to be addressed rather than trying to find ways to infer maintenance issues from DNF logs.

 

I'd be a lot happier with the CHS if it focussed its efforts on chasing up ignored NMs rather than second-guessing DNFs and assuming any find after a DNF must be a throwdown.

 

I'll second this one!

 

Can't tell you how many time I show up at a cache start looking. Nope not where I thought it would be. Check the hint. Yep that is the spot. No other places matching the hint. Then three months ago NM filed followed by a couple of DNFs. Pretty frustrating. I agree focus on NM/NA logs that are ignored rather than stringing it out for months.

[+STNolan]

6 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'd be okay with that or similar option...

When we're seeing DNF because they couldn't figure how to get to GZ to even look, and one recently, because they had to head back for a bathroom, "Could Not Search" (or similar) would have been a better option.   For those people.

The issue really is because some people believe those are reasons for a DNF.

Instead of simply leaving a Write Note (if they really feel they have to say something...) ,  "Could Not Search" just might be enough for those who don't understand they didn't even look for it.

 

I'm of the party that a "CNS" is just as easily captured by a "Write Note." 

Here's a note I left the other day:

 

Write note

08/Sep/2018

DNS - Did not Search as there was a muggle parked almost as close to GZ as I was! I’ll be back to grab this one.

 

 

I think adding too many different log types may confuse the newbies; many of whom we have noted are the reasons for DNFs; instead we should focus more attention on teaching newcomers HOW to appropriately apply different logs. i.e.

 

• DNF is when you searched but couldn't find it
• Found it's are for when you've located the cache
• Needs Maintenance is for when a cache is in disrepair
• Needs Archived is for when a cache is located on private property, has a history of being neglected (with no owner response), or is manifestly unsafe or illegal in its placement.

The tools are there; the education for newer (and some veteran) players is not. Lets fix the source, not add more confusion.

[+MNTA]

From the app you easily only have three choices: Found It, Did not find, and Write note.

 

With those three options how is Write note appropriate for I showed up at the GZ and Did not find it because _______ "fill in the blank".

 

As previously stated DNF needs to be just that a DNF. Regardless of reasons and people should not be made to feel bad for filing it as such. If mugles show up, ran out of time, did not have the correct extraction tool, started poring down rain and I did not want to continue searching. What ever the reason. There should be only small amount of correlation to the cache needs attention. Multiple DNFs on an easy cache maybe but a human reviewer should interpret the DNFs to see if there is a problem. 

 

To report a problem you have to be motivated to locate and report the NM/NA menu. Which I suspect is why some people don't file them.

[+barefootjeff]

57 minutes ago, MNTA said:

As previously stated DNF needs to be just that a DNF. Regardless of reasons and people should not be made to feel bad for filing it as such. If mugles show up, ran out of time, did not have the correct extraction tool, started poring down rain and I did not want to continue searching. What ever the reason. There should be only small amount of correlation to the cache needs attention. Multiple DNFs on an easy cache maybe but a human reviewer should interpret the DNFs to see if there is a problem.

 

I tend to go for the higher terrain-rated caches, so for me the terrain I have to get through to sign the log is just as much a part of the cache experience and challenge as seeing through the camo on the container when I get there. Whether I'm defeated by the camo or the terrain,  it's still worthy of a DNF, both for my own record-keeping of my adventures and the story of the cache. If I'm part way through a tough multi and want to leave the rest for another day I'll report my progress with a WN, but if I've tried and failed it's a DNF. My DNFs in themselves don't imply any shortcomings in the cache and shouldn't be interpreted that way; if I think there's a cache problem I'll log an NM.

[+niraD]

46 minutes ago, MNTA said:

With those three options how is Write note appropriate for I showed up at the GZ and Did not find it because _______ "fill in the blank".

Found It is not appropriate because I did not find the cache.

Did Not Find is not appropriate because I did not search for the cache. 

That leaves the catch-all Write Note for a DNS (Did Not Search).

 

But others will use the DNF log in situations where they did not actually search, or where they did not reach GZ. That's why the CHS should not treat DNF logs as "might be missing" logs.

[+frostengel]

Does anyone know if an OM log resets the CHS to 100%? Let's say my cache had 60% CHS because of some DNF logs. If I just write an OM ist it back at full health?

And does the cache remember its latest history!? If I had DNFs and restored the cache to 100% health with an OM log but more DNFs follow - will the CHS sink faster then?

 

(Obviously there are totally different OM logs from the very helpful "I checked the location and the cache is there/and put out a new box as the old was missing." to the somekind helpful "Without looking I am sure that the cache is there." to the not at all helping "I am going to look at some time." The latter shouldn't heal the cache at all while the first one should give 100% of health but I can't image the algorithm to dicide which kind of OM it is.)

[+cerberus1]

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I tend to go for the higher terrain-rated caches, so for me the terrain I have to get through to sign the log is just as much a part of the cache experience and challenge as seeing through the camo on the container when I get there. Whether I'm defeated by the camo or the terrain,  it's still worthy of a DNF, both for my own record-keeping of my adventures and the story of the cache.

 

My terrain's higher than it used to be too (the other 2/3rds giving up the hobby did that for me). 

If I didn't have any more rope to transition to another tree, so didn't get to the location of the container to search,  I'd write a note.

If the four mile walk to the lake I thought I was gonna cross because it's now Winter is slush, I'll walk that four miles back to the truck, and when home I'll write a note.

 

ETA... It's still the same story of the day, but if I didn't get a chance to even look for a container, it's a Write Note.

Edited September 13, 2018 by cerberus1
explainification

[+L0ne.R]

4 hours ago, frostengel said:

Does anyone know if an OM log resets the CHS to 100%? Let's say my cache had 60% CHS because of some DNF logs. If I just write an OM ist it back at full health?

And does the cache remember its latest history!? If I had DNFs and restored the cache to 100% health with an OM log but more DNFs follow - will the CHS sink faster then?

 

(Obviously there are totally different OM logs from the very helpful "I checked the location and the cache is there/and put out a new box as the old was missing." to the somekind helpful "Without looking I am sure that the cache is there." to the not at all helping "I am going to look at some time." The latter shouldn't heal the cache at all while the first one should give 100% of health but I can't image the algorithm to decide which kind of OM it is.)

1

 

Because more and more COs are posting OMs saying they will check the cache, rather than "I checked the cache, it is there and in good shape now", I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log. The low CHS is invisible and has no effect on the availability of the cache and listing until a reviewer decides to intervene with a note/disable/archive. 

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Because more and more COs are posting OMs saying they will check the cache, rather than "I checked the cache, it is there and in good shape now", I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log. The low CHS is invisible and has no effect on the availability of the cache and listing until a reviewer decides to intervene with a note/disable/archive. 

 

Do't forget the COs who are posting OM's saying they won't check the cache because the last person to log it didn't mention that the cache was still junk so hey - it must be OK, yeah?

[+humboldt flier]

21 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Because more and more COs are posting OMs saying they will check the cache, rather than "I checked the cache, it is there and in good shape now", I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log. The low CHS is invisible and has no effect on the availability of the cache and listing until a reviewer decides to intervene with a note/disable/archive. 

 

 

Perhaps, however,

          Hypothetically:  Cache gets flagged ... owner performs maintenance. a few more folks seek and come up empty ... cache gets flagged again ... owner gets the dreaded "nasty-gram.   What then.

 

           Repeated nasty-grams because someone can't tell P-nut butter from Putty ... so they fire off NM / NA notes and the cycle continues.

 

**(PERHAPS)**:  when the NM / NA options are selected a confirmation screen might "come up" prior to the final selection.  Is that not what happens now prior to archiving of a cache???

[+thebruce0]

All these CO OM logs that are anything other than "I checked on the cache and it's good" are always a risk  that might come back to bite them. It doesn't matter to anyone at that point what the CHS reads, other than the CO who wants to 'ward off' a reviewer. But the more a reviewer is 'warded off' by potentially misleading OMs, the more likely a reviewer will take drastic action when there is a real problem.

 

The only time I dislike a CO posting an OM that isn't an actual check/fix, is if there IS a problem and I go to search for the cache - if there's no problem with the cache then that OM log is irrelevant to me. That's it. And if there is an issue when I go hunt it, another NM from me and I'll have done my bit; then it's up to the CO what action to take. Rinse repeat.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Because more and more COs are posting OMs saying they will check the cache, rather than "I checked the cache, it is there and in good shape now", I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log. The low CHS is invisible and has no effect on the availability of the cache and listing until a reviewer decides to intervene with a note/disable/archive. 

So the CHS should trust DNF logs enough to flag a cache as needing a "friendly" reminder, but the CHS should not trust even OM logs enough to clear the need for more "friendly" reminders (or disabling, or whatever follows).

 

Does that seem broken to anyone else?

Edited September 13, 2018 by niraD

[+dprovan]

20 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

I wish we could capture all the energy wasted on this thread and do something useful with it instead.

I wish GS could capture all the energy wasted on CHS and do something useful with it instead.

[+frostengel]

3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log.

 

Should be - agreed. But what is the truth?

 

My question hasn't been answered, does no one know? Groundspeak,  please help!

 

Jochen

 

PS: using a smartphone with German autocorrection sucks... ?

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

So the CHS should trust DNF logs enough to flag a cache as needing a "friendly" reminder, but the CHS should not trust even OM logs enough to clear the need for more "friendly" reminders (or disabling, or whatever follows).

 

Yes, because unfortunately,  we can't trust many cache owners to do the right thing by posting OMs only when they have checked their cache, rather then what is happening more and more posting OMs to circumvent reviewer interaction, remove red wrenches and upping CHS scores.  We can't trust many finders either, they will post bogus finds or leave a throwdown. 

 

Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. 

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Does that seem broken to anyone else?

 

Not broken by GCHQ, broken by unscrupulous behavior. 

Edited September 13, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Yes, because unfortunately,  we can't trust many cache owners to do the right thing by posting OMs only when they have checked their cache, rather then what is happening more and more posting OMs to circumvent reviewer interaction, remove red wrenches and upping CHS scores.  We can't trust many finders either, they will post bogus finds or leave a throwdown. 

 

Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. 

 

 

Not broken by GCHQ, broken by unscrupulous behavior. 

 

I'm with niraD on this one.

 

Here are two scenarios:

1)

Five cachers, all together, can't find a cache. One of them files a "NM - Must be Gone because I couldn't find it." - Red Wrench City.

The owner, with twenty hides, walks down the street, looks at the cache and files "OM - I checked, and it's sitting there." - Red Wrench becomes Green Wrench.

 

 

2)

Five first-day cell-phone appers stumble across the app in the PlayStore,  go together to a cache, don't find it because they don't know what they're looking for and file five "DNF - MUST BE GONE" logs.

The owner, with twenty hides, walks down the street, looks at the cache and files "OM - I checked, and it's sitting there." - CHS still stinks, and the cache is processed by a Reviewer, or ditched WITHOUT review, depending on the anecdote you want to rage against.

 

So, while in the first scenario, that's how the "Wrench" system is designed and it's fine, but in the second scenario, we shouldn't trust the CO's OM log for the CHS system because there's a feeling that there's a disturbing trend where COs are lying?

 

 

Is that like allowing burglars to burgle because we read about a prosecutor somewhere who cheats in court, and there's no way to ensure the honesty of OUR local Court Officers?

 

In the first scenario, if the CO files "OM - I'll look at it tomorrow," Red Wrench becomes Green Wrench. Should we now not allow COs to reset their Red Wrenches without Volunteer Reviewer approval?

 

Like I said, I'm with niraD on this one.

[+frostengel]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

We can't trust many finders either, they will post bogus finds or leave a throwdown.

 

Is it really that bad in your area!? I trust most cachers not to do so. And if they replaced the container most would tell in the logs...

I always thought we Germans were known for cheating but it seems it is not too bad here. :-)

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Yes, because unfortunately,  we can't trust many cache owners to do the right thing by posting OMs only when they have checked their cache, rather then what is happening more and more posting OMs to circumvent reviewer interaction, remove red wrenches and upping CHS scores.  We can't trust many finders either, they will post bogus finds or leave a throwdown. 

 

Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. 

 

 

Not broken by GCHQ, broken by unscrupulous behavior. 

 

Just to follow up on your point, L0ne.R, you say "Visit the cache and make any needed repairs", but how does that help the CHS? If the problem is unscrupulous COs, then what's the diff between "I went there and it's fine", and "I went there and made a repair"? How does either of those provide any reliable indication that anything was done?

 

Maybe we need to go to "kidnap" rules - in order to have a CO's "OM" log taken seriously, it must be accompanied by a photo of them at GZ with a copy of today's paper with the date clearly visible!

Edited September 13, 2018 by TeamRabbitRun

[+MNTA]

26 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Just to follow up on your point, L0ne.R, you say "Visit the cache and make any needed repairs", but how does that help the CHS? If the problem is unscrupulous COs, then what's the diff between "I went there and it's fine", and "I went there and made a repair"? How does either of those provide any reliable indication that anything was done?

 

Maybe we need to go to "kidnap" rules - in order to have a CO's "OM" log taken seriously, it must be accompanied by a photo of them at GZ with a copy of today's paper with the date clearly visible!

 

Meta-data in the picture will show you GPS coordinates and date so no need for the sunday paper

 

Seriously though, this is going to annoy some but as technology grows and changes why not have big brother check in the last "pick time period" that your smartphone app recorded you at those coordinates. Same applies to find it folks. No more arm chair logging, if you are not with X distance of the cache no you may not log it. Have a little wiggle room for sure take a picture all this proves you were physically there.

 

If an OM log says they are planning on going to check on it. The reviewer should disable. Remind them of the guidelines and be nice about it. Yes bring it up again, if high density areas if we loose a cache or two it is not the end of the world. If the spot was good a new caching opportunity will be made available and someone will place a new cache for all to enjoy.

 

Remember this is supposed to be fun folks. It's no fun to hunt for a problem cache. It's no fun to find a stinky slimy mess. Is the automation perfect. No. I often ask myself what would a first time cacher think about this find. If they would run away screaming I file a NM log. One GZ I visited this summer turned into a homeless camp in a briar patch, it was not that way 5 years ago, but the place changed and the CO moved out of town the cache needed maintenace, the cache was archived. Is that a bad thing? 

[+cerberus1]

15 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Seriously though, this is going to annoy some but as technology grows and changes why not have big brother check in the last "pick time period" that your smartphone app recorded you at those coordinates. Same applies to find it folks. No more arm chair logging, if you are not with X distance of the cache no you may not log it. Have a little wiggle room for sure take a picture all this proves you were physically there.

 

This hobby started and the company built itself on long-time cachers with handheld GPSrs, locating a container with a log inside.

Many of them believe that apps have already taken a bit too much out of this hobby as it is...

There's a number of "location" games similar to what you suggest, and some have left to capture a code,  snap a pic ...

 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by cerberus1
splled a wersd wong

[+MNTA]

Resistance is futile my friend. The game will modernize as technology and capabilities change. As you noted it already has GS will need to do this to attract new subscribers.

 

A web page with a list of GPS coordinates will no longer suffice as indicated by the current infrastructure and database.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

26 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

Meta-data in the picture will show you GPS coordinates and date so no need for the sunday paper

 

Seriously though, this is going to annoy some but as technology grows and changes why not have big brother check in the last "pick time period" that your smartphone app recorded you at those coordinates. Same applies to find it folks. No more arm chair logging, if you are not with X distance of the cache no you may not log it. Have a little wiggle room for sure take a picture all this proves you were physically there.

 

If an OM log says they are planning on going to check on it. The reviewer should disable. Remind them of the guidelines and be nice about it. Yes bring it up again, if high density areas if we loose a cache or two it is not the end of the world. If the spot was good a new caching opportunity will be made available and someone will place a new cache for all to enjoy.

 

Remember this is supposed to be fun folks. It's no fun to hunt for a problem cache. It's no fun to find a stinky slimy mess. Is the automation perfect. No. I often ask myself what would a first time cacher think about this find. If they would run away screaming I file a NM log. One GZ I visited this summer turned into a homeless camp in a briar patch, it was not that way 5 years ago, but the place changed and the CO moved out of town the cache needed maintenace, the cache was archived. Is that a bad thing? 

 

Disagree.  (Noting that some of MNTA's post was tongue-in-cheek)

First, I don't always cache with my smartphone. For kicks, I haul out my trusty old GPSr, with which I started.

Second, I don't EVER have metadata turned on for my pictures.

Second-and-a-half, I almost always log LATER. Sometimes I use a 'draft' log at GZ, sometimes not.

Third, I often turn off location services AND the app when I'm at GZ, searching. I'm kinda silly about my battery.

Fourth, would I file a NM for that cache that made the newbie run screaming? No, if that were the only criteria; some caches are for experienced players.

Fifth, "It's no fun to hunt for a problem cache." - Speak for yourself. Different people like different challenges.

Sixth, (from your NEXT post - I can see into the future - ooo-oo-oooh!) about technology - if that's it, then we all might as well be playing Munzee.

 

Technology certainly ASSISTS with this hobby, but the only tech that's REQUIRED is the ability to follow a GPS signal, and the are lots of ways to do that without a phone.

 

AND, there are more people than you think who cache WITHOUT a GPS! The use of map&compass alone is out there, as is 'inference', meaning cachers who deduce cache locations from descriptions, hints and prior logs! That's a slightly different game, but it's perfectly valid.

[+niraD]

32 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Seriously though, this is going to annoy some but as technology grows and changes why not have big brother check in the last "pick time period" that your smartphone app recorded you at those coordinates. Same applies to find it folks. No more arm chair logging, if you are not with X distance of the cache no you may not log it. Have a little wiggle room for sure take a picture all this proves you were physically there.

So now cache owners MUST own a smartphone and must be running the One True App™️ while they visit the cache location? Do you seriously believe that that is a good direction for geocaching to go?

 

Last month I posted an OM log, just saying that I was in the area and verified that everything was okay. If that isn't good enough, then geocaching is dead.

 

33 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Remember this is supposed to be fun folks.

That applies to cache owners too. Stop doing things that suck the fun out of cache ownership, or you won't have any caches to find.

[+L0ne.R]

45 minutes ago, MNTA said:

If an OM log says they are planning on going to check on it. The reviewer should disable. Remind them of the guidelines and be nice about it. Yes bring it up again, if high density areas if we loose a cache or two it is not the end of the world. If the spot was good a new caching opportunity will be made available and someone will place a new cache for all to enjoy.

 

This ^

 

[+L0ne.R]

8 minutes ago, niraD said:

50 minutes ago, MNTA said:

Remember this is supposed to be fun folks.

That applies to cache owners too. Stop doing things that suck the fun out of cache ownership, or you won't have any caches to find.

 

Do you mean stop doing things that could cause the cache owner to have to check a cache because it sucks the fun out of cache ownership? 

Stop asking owners to hide only what they can reasonably maintain because it sucks to fun out of hiding caches if owners have to check them occasionally? 

 

There are a LOT of cache owners who would hide a few more maintained caches if the general culture returned to more pride in cache hides. For me, the fun in hiding caches has been sucked out by the numbers-style, saturation-style of play. 

[+niraD]

8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Do you mean stop doing things that could cause the cache owner to have to check a cache because it sucks the fun out of cache ownership? 

Stop asking owners to hide only what they can reasonably maintain because it sucks to fun out of hiding caches if owners have to check them occasionally? 

No.

 

8 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

There are a LOT of cache owners who would hide a few more maintained caches if the general culture returned to more pride in cache hides. For me, the fun in hiding caches has been sucked out by the numbers-style, saturation-style of play. 

And what does the CHS do to improve the quality of fungible number-style, saturation-style containers? Those listings never get so much as a DNF because everyone comes prepared with film canisters with pre-signed logs.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Because more and more COs are posting OMs saying they will check the cache, rather than "I checked the cache, it is there and in good shape now", I don't think the CHS should be cleared until a reviewer has had a look at the logs, particularly the OM log. The low CHS is invisible and has no effect on the availability of the cache and listing until a reviewer decides to intervene with a note/disable/archive. 

 

I can't help wondering if this increase in COs posting such OMs has coincided with the change to the logging page that made OM the default log for COs. I really really wish they'd do away with these default log types and go back to forcing people to choose a log type.

[+humboldt flier]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I can't help wondering if this increase in COs posting such OMs has coincided with the change to the logging page that made OM the default log for COs. I really really wish they'd do away with these default log types and go back to forcing people to choose a log type.

 

True That

[+justintim1999]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

All these CO OM logs that are anything other than "I checked on the cache and it's good" are always a risk  that might come back to bite them. It doesn't matter to anyone at that point what the CHS reads, other than the CO who wants to 'ward off' a reviewer. But the more a reviewer is 'warded off' by potentially misleading OMs, the more likely a reviewer will take drastic action when there is a real problem.

 

The only time I dislike a CO posting an OM that isn't an actual check/fix, is if there IS a problem and I go to search for the cache - if there's no problem with the cache then that OM log is irrelevant to me. That's it. And if there is an issue when I go hunt it, another NM from me and I'll have done my bit; then it's up to the CO what action to take. Rinse repeat.

I like this post.   You can only post an OM log so many times with the next log describing the same problem before a reviewer takes notice.   The trust between a cacher and a reviewer is extremely important.  Once you break that trust it's hard to get back.  From then on don't expect to get the benefit of the doubt.  

 

Any time I check on a cache for whatever reason I post an OM regardless if I have to do anything or not.   It takes about 10 seconds and lets everyone concerned know that I'm still alive and on the job.   

[+justintim1999]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

No.

 

And what does the CHS do to improve the quality of fungible number-style, saturation-style containers? Those listings never get so much as a DNF because everyone comes prepared with film canisters with pre-signed logs.

What can it do if the cache has no documented issues?   I guess there could be worse thing than a new container and log.   Fungible.....It's just fun to say

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I can't help wondering if this increase in COs posting such OMs has coincided with the change to the logging page that made OM the default log for COs. I really really wish they'd do away with these default log types and go back to forcing people to choose a log type.

 

Interesting. When I use the GC app and tap the Log bar, I get 3 options: Owner Maintenance, Write Note, and Disable. It doesn't default to Owner Maintenance but it is the first item on the list. 

[+redsox_mark]

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Interesting. When I use the GC app and tap the Log bar, I get 3 options: Owner Maintenance, Write Note, and Disable. It doesn't default to Owner Maintenance but it is the first item on the list. 

 

The GC app is as you say.   The website chooses OM for you are the default, and puts you in the box to write your explanation.   

[+L0ne.R]

7 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

 

The GC app is as you say.   The website chooses OM for you are the default, and puts you in the box to write your explanation.   

 

OK. I see that OM is the first option on the list. I suppose if a CO was in a hurry they wouldn't bother to open the menu to see other options. 

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, honestly I don't get why there's a default value in those dropdowns. If they intentionally want to have OM selected, that logic seems off. But if it's just an oversight, and the fact it hasn't been fixed yet - what's going on?

[+dprovan]

22 hours ago, MNTA said:

Remember this is supposed to be fun folks. It's no fun to hunt for a problem cache. It's no fun to find a stinky slimy mess. Is the automation perfect. No. I often ask myself what would a first time cacher think about this find. If they would run away screaming I file a NM log. One GZ I visited this summer turned into a homeless camp in a briar patch, it was not that way 5 years ago, but the place changed and the CO moved out of town the cache needed maintenace, the cache was archived. Is that a bad thing? 

I disagree with nearly everything you're saying here. If people don't have fun searching for caches even though they sometimes find a stinky slimy mess, they should be playing a different game. Bad caches can happen with the best of COs doing a wonderful job of maintenance. This extreme posture that we seem to have adopted of pretending there's a way for geocachers to never experience a bad cache is just silly. In fact, I think this attitude is the biggest thing sucking the fun out of geocaching. It takes the whole process so seriously. I prefer the game as it was before GS starting holding our hands so we never have a bad experience. And I'm saying that from the seeker's point of view. It's just all the more obvious to me when I consider the point nivaD makes about so many of these ideas trying to make it more fun for seekers by explicitly making it less fun for hiders.

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It's just all the more obvious to me when I consider the point nivaD makes about so many of these ideas trying to make it more fun for seekers by explicitly making it less fun for hiders.

 

What's obvious to me Is that we should ensure anyone deriving fun from the knowledge that they responsible for people finding a stinky, slimy mess should be weeded out and sent packing.

[+niraD]

27 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

What's obvious to me Is that we should ensure anyone deriving fun from the knowledge that they responsible for people finding a stinky, slimy mess should be weeded out and sent packing.

Great! Let's get identify all those geocachers who don't close containers properly, so we can weed them out and send them packing!

 

Oh, was that not what you meant?

[+Team Microdot]

Just now, niraD said:

Great! Let's get identify all those geocachers who don't close containers properly, so we can weed them out and send them packing!

 

Oh, was that not what you meant?

 

Sure - why not - if that's THEIR idea of fun.