Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
learn2mine

how to see a cache health score

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, learn2mine said:

I have heard of a cache health score... Is there a way for me to see that! Or is it not for the average guy!

 

The CHS is a reviewer tool. The score is not public. 

Share this post


Link to post

More precise Help Center link.

 

All of your caches have awesome health scores, except for this one, which is still way above the point where a cache health score email notice would be sent to you.  Tip:  If you had written an "Owner Maintenance" log instead of a "Write Note" log when you checked on your cache, its health score would be even higher.

 

Thank you for being a good cache owner!

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Keystone said:

All of your caches have awesome health scores, except for this one, which is still way above the point where a cache health score email notice would be sent to you.  Tip:  If you had written an "Owner Maintenance" log instead of a "Write Note" log when you checked on your cache, its health score would be even higher.

 

This is something I really don't understand. The log pattern on that cache goes Publish - Found - Found - DNF - WN - Found. Why doesn't the most recent find cancel out the preceding DNF? Surely the only maintenance issue a DNF can suggest is a missing cache (people don't log DNF if the logbook is wet or full, or the container is damaged), and the subsequent find shows that it wasn't. Why does it still need an OM to fully wipe away the effect of that DNF?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is something I really don't understand. The log pattern on that cache goes Publish - Found - Found - DNF - WN - Found. Why doesn't the most recent find cancel out the preceding DNF? Surely the only maintenance issue a DNF can suggest is a missing cache (people don't log DNF if the logbook is wet or full, or the container is damaged), and the subsequent find shows that it wasn't. Why does it still need an OM to fully wipe away the effect of that DNF?

 

Maybe it's because people will log a “Find” with a very loose definition of a “Find”, and some didn't necessarily find it recently. I once tried to find a flare tube cache in a hollow tree, now the whole tree had disintegrated, pieces spread everywhere, cache gone. DNF. Next log from somecacher: “TFTC”. If instead there was an OM log, it might say something about the situation (tree's gone), that the container is now in place in a decent spot. I'd be comfortable enough to go look again. Maybe it's something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Maybe it's because people will log a “Find” with a very loose definition of a “Find”, and some didn't necessarily find it recently. I once tried to find a flare tube cache in a hollow tree, now the whole tree had disintegrated, pieces spread everywhere, cache gone. DNF. Next log from somecacher: “TFTC”. If instead there was an OM log, it might say something about the situation (tree's gone), that the container is now in place in a decent spot. I'd be comfortable enough to go look again. Maybe it's something like that.

 

Surely though the likelihood of that find being false is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of the DNF not being due to a missing cache. It seems an odd way of interpreting logs. Maybe if there was a long string of DNFs on a low-difficulty cache that following find might be considered statistically suspicious, but with just one DNF? Or maybe I just live in a very different caching world to the rest of the planet.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Surely though the likelihood of that find being false is orders of magnitude lower than the likelihood of the DNF not being due to a missing cache. It seems an odd way of interpreting logs. Maybe if there was a long string of DNFs on a low-difficulty cache that following find might be considered statistically suspicious, but with just one DNF? Or maybe I just live in a very different caching world to the rest of the planet.

 

It seems like a one-size-fits-all algorithm.  But as Keystone mentioned, certain things improve the score.  Is it possible that Certain Things also prevent the one-DNF trigger?   

 

I've seen a bunch of local caches archived after one DNF and the subsequent un-heeded warning logs.  I've found most of those before, I know what they're like.  A cache may be "findable" in the most flexible definition, at some percentage of remaining a "cache", and eventually crosses the threshold.  It's good that those are gone.  I haven't seen one yet that didn't reeeally deserve it, so at least it works fine on this end of the planet.  Yeah, I should have logged NA on those and a few hundred other local caches, but never did, so I'm the reason they made a CHS.  Sorry.  :unsure:

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Yeah, I should have logged NA on those and a few hundred other local caches, but never did, so I'm the reason they made a CHS.  Sorry.  :unsure:

 

Ha ha, I should've known you were the one responsible. It's always the dragon's fault 😋

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

Ha ha, I should've known you were the one responsible. It's always the dragon's fault 😋

 

Bad dragon.  No maiden. :o

Share this post


Link to post

The topic of this thread is "how to see a cache health score."  Seeing that the OP is a very good cache owner/maintainer, I assumed this question was asked in an effort to do an even better job.  In that spirit, I posted a tip that would help improve a very good health score into an excellent health score.

 

This resulted in the thread going off topic.  I now regret my prior post, and I apologize to the OP for any distress caused by the replies.  Your caches have nothing, absolutely nothing, to worry about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The topic of this thread is "how to see a cache health score."  Seeing that the OP is a very good cache owner/maintainer, I assumed this question was asked in an effort to do an even better job.  In that spirit, I posted a tip that would help improve a very good health score into an excellent health score.

 

This resulted in the thread going off topic.  I now regret my prior post, and I apologize to the OP for any distress caused by the replies.  Your caches have nothing, absolutely nothing, to worry about.

 

Is it considered appropriate to ask a reviewer about the CHS level of one's caches?  Or to ask TPTB?

 

I don't necessarily need to know right now.  Just wondering about the policy.  But it wouldn't kill me if there was a leetle "green light" icon or something to look at, for each of my caches.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, kunarion said:

Is it considered appropriate to ask a reviewer about the CHS level of one's caches?  Or to ask TPTB?

 

I can't speak for Groundspeak.  I wouldn't see it as being inappropriate to ask a reviewer, but viewing CHS involves opening each active cache listing in review mode, so the more caches one has, the longer it would take a reviewer to do.

 

I peeked at a sampling of yours.  The lowest rating I saw was 97%, but the listing itself had no issues I could identify other than a few notes in addition to the found it logs.  (Something about Soviet Ducks?  I must have missed the memo.) 

 

It seems many caches with no DNFs but no owner maintenance logs hover in the high 90s and only caches with recent owner maintenance logs get 100%.

 

I'd say the big takeaway lesson from this is, if a cache owner is wondering whether a particular cache has a low cache health score, the best course of action is to go check on it, do any needed maintenance, and then post an owner maintenance note, and this will guarantee an increased health score.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, geoawareUSA9 said:

 

I can't speak for Groundspeak.  I wouldn't see it as being inappropriate to ask a reviewer, but viewing CHS involves opening each active cache listing in review mode, so the more caches one has, the longer it would take a reviewer to do.

 

I peeked at a sampling of yours.  The lowest rating I saw was 97%, but the listing itself had no issues I could identify other than a few notes in addition to the found it logs.  (Something about Soviet Ducks?  I must have missed the memo.) 

 

It seems many caches with no DNFs but no owner maintenance logs hover in the high 90s and only caches with recent owner maintenance logs get 100%.

 

I'd say the big takeaway lesson from this is, if a cache owner is wondering whether a particular cache has a low cache health score, the best course of action is to go check on it, do any needed maintenance, and then post an owner maintenance note, and this will guarantee an increased health score.

 

Thanks!  I try to perform the OMs on a regular basis, and haven't seen any CHS problems.  I'm still not sure why one DNF may cause a formal warning.  That is, how CHS knows which caches have gone bad.  CHS seems pretty good at this.

 

And I never did find out what Soviet Ducks are. :yikes:

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, learn2mine said:

Is there a good reason that the geocache health score isn't public?

 

I wondered that myself.  But one thing I'd expect is that some people would then compete for the lowest score.  "Hey, I still had 2%!  Why was my cache archived?!"  :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, kunarion said:

 

I wondered that myself.  But one thing I'd expect is that some people would then compete for the lowest score.  "Hey, I still had 2%!  Why was my cache archived?!"  :blink:

 

Knowing the specific score on a cache might make it easier for a CO or finders to game the system to increase or decrease the score.  The algorithm used to create the CHS is likely hidden for that reason as well.  I kind of like the idea of a "green" icon which indicates that a cache is healthy, and the additions of a "yellow" icon might suggest to the CO to check on the cache and a "red" icon might indicate more serious issues.   Many, if not most cache owners might make it a goal to keep all of the health score icons green, and address any that are yellow before there is a significant problem.  Some cache owners won't care if they have a bunch of red icons because they're just going to archive them (or let the reviewer archive them).

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be a good idea. The icons of course only being visible to the cache's owners.

Technically we have that with the NM flag, so owners know explicitly which caches are flagged as needing maintenance (though the container doesn't necessarily need it - it's a listing issue that needs to be resolved having the outstanding flag).  Having an icon that indicates a very generic 'health' state as a guide for whether the owner should prioritize (or soon) some form of maintenance action (visit, or review history and post an OM) and which is vague enough not to uncover any algorithmic properties, could actually be a really good idea...

...perhaps even fare better than that dreaded nudge email

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think it would be a good idea. The icons of course only being visible to the cache's owners.

Technically we have that with the NM flag, so owners know explicitly which caches are flagged as needing maintenance (though the container doesn't necessarily need it - it's a listing issue that needs to be resolved having the outstanding flag).  Having an icon that indicates a very generic 'health' state as a guide for whether the owner should prioritize (or soon) some form of maintenance action (visit, or review history and post an OM) and which is vague enough not to uncover any algorithmic properties, could actually be a really good idea...

...perhaps even fare better than that dreaded nudge email

 

Yes, I also think a "traffic lights" indicator visible only to the CO would be a good move. Some of my more remote caches are best visited in cooler weather or, in the case of my T5s, when tides and winds are favourable and outside the school holidays to avoid all the muggles on jet skis, so a yellow light would allow me to plan a visit at a suitable time before it turns into a red one and becomes suddenly urgent. I suspect some of my hides could be in the yellow zone since they get quite a few DNFs, and perhaps some of the others that simply don't get found very often.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Knowing the specific score on a cache might make it easier for a CO or finders to game the system to increase or decrease the score. 

 

Definitely.

 

I'm already seeing a lot of OMs that are not OMs..."I'll check next week"--then they never do; "The cache is good"--then the d1.5/t1.5 cache gets 2 more DNFs;  the wet cache gets a new report about the cracked lid and unsignable log. 

 

If the CHS were visible, guaranteed that we will see more false OMs to get that green light back. Except in the case of owners who aren't playing anymore. At least those will get archived by a reviewer eventually.

 

But then those of us looking for quality caches can't use the tools of the site because we can't trust that a green light actually means the cache is there and in reasonable condition. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/22/2018 at 11:56 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

  I kind of like the idea of a "green" icon which indicates that a cache is healthy, and the additions of a "yellow" icon might suggest to the CO to check on the cache and a "red" icon might indicate more serious issues. 

 

On 10/22/2018 at 12:03 PM, thebruce0 said:

I think it would be a good idea. The icons of course only being visible to the cache's owners.

 

I agree with this.  A quick visual that gives the CO a general idea of the cache state (which, for a good CO, on top of things, would likely know anyway). But a visual reminder would be something I'd like to see on the cache page, for the CO's eyes only.

 

I recently had 2 DNF's posted on a multi cache, a fairly new hide, after only a handful of Finds.  The first was due to confusion on the first two stages of the cache, the final container was never looked for.  The second DNF indicated no container was found.  I checked it, and the container WAS there, right where it should be.  I could have posted a WN, but based on this discussion, instead I messaged the one who had logged the DNF, and then posted an OM stating the cache was in place and ready to be found.

 

In the first case, posting a WN after 2 DNF's, my traffic light might have gone yellow?  By posting the OM, it would go green?  Without knowing the numbers or the way it's figured, and based on discussions here, I went with an OM log to be sure.  After all, I did go to the final location and verify the container was in place!

Share this post


Link to post

Awesome, to me that sounds like a result GS would consider a win. It might be a slight inconvenience (moreso depending on work to get to the cache), but you were considerate of past failed finders and on checking you made it known that the cache is there and findable for future cachers.

 

I think the WN method was actually fairly common (I'm pretty sure I've done that a few times too), but the latter way, really, there wasn't really a reason not to do that before. Now there is; so in a sense the 'score' system is nudging people towards a little more of a visible on-top-of-things, value-the-finder mentality.  I know I too now if ever checking on a cache (whether after DNFs or not) will favour posting an OM over just a brief 'note' (judged on a case by case basis, of course; I wouldn't post 10 consecutive OM logs, but that is the subject of a different thread. An actual other thread that exists, heh)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I agree with this.  A quick visual that gives the CO a general idea of the cache state (which, for a good CO, on top of things, would likely know anyway). But a visual reminder would be something I'd like to see on the cache page, for the CO's eyes only.

 

I recently had 2 DNF's posted on a multi cache, a fairly new hide, after only a handful of Finds.  The first was due to confusion on the first two stages of the cache, the final container was never looked for.  The second DNF indicated no container was found.  I checked it, and the container WAS there, right where it should be.  I could have posted a WN, but based on this discussion, instead I messaged the one who had logged the DNF, and then posted an OM stating the cache was in place and ready to be found.

 

In the first case, posting a WN after 2 DNF's, my traffic light might have gone yellow?  By posting the OM, it would go green?  Without knowing the numbers or the way it's figured, and based on discussions here, I went with an OM log to be sure.  After all, I did go to the final location and verify the container was in place!

You did all this without any CHS color coding. Why do you think you need the additional information? It sounds like you already know the state of your caches, so why do you want GS to waste time providing you with redundant information? Not to mention making you second guess how to report what you found just to get the color to change to something more friendly.

 

I'm impressed by your dedication, but I wouldn't want the system to make you feel obligated to rush out at the slightest hint of a possible problem.

 

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the WN method was actually fairly common (I'm pretty sure I've done that a few times too), but the latter way, really, there wasn't really a reason not to do that before. Now there is; so in a sense the 'score' system is nudging people towards a little more of a visible on-top-of-things, value-the-finder mentality.

First, let's keep in mind, as I just pointed out, that CAVinoGal did this without any help from the CHS, so in this case, we don't need anything additional to nudge the CO to be on top of things while valuing the finder.

 

But, furthermore, I think CAVinoGal's slight inconvenience should be measured against the slight inconvenience of a seeker has the cache actually been missing. I applaud CAVinoGal's diligence, but the attitude behind the CHS is that seekers should never be inconvenienced, and that seems unreasonable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, dprovan said:

the attitude behind the CHS is that seekers should never be inconvenienced, and that seems unreasonable.

 

On the contrary, since GS isn't making demands and ultimatums that every cache be 100% tip top shape, but rather finding ways to encourage owners to do more diligence (primarily those who do not, as those who do are already doing well) in order to provide a better experience for those finding. And there've been debates about 'well geocaching wouldn't exist if it weren't for people who place them!' or '...the people who find them!'  It's both. An effort to encourage cache ownership is just as important as efforts to improve cache finding. It's absolutely not unreasonable, in my opinion, to put up with a small bit of inconvenience on the high end of the scale if it'll give a bit of kick to the other end of the scale, and generally provide a higher likelihood of a positive cache finding experience for the entire geocaching community.

Nothing here is guaranteed, everyone needs to remember that. But it is an effort towards a better all around experience (owning and finding), the results of which are very hard to evaluate meaningfully.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

You did all this without any CHS color coding. Why do you think you need the additional information? It sounds like you already know the state of your caches, so why do you want GS to waste time providing you with redundant information? Not to mention making you second guess how to report what you found just to get the color to change to something more friendly.

I don't necessarily NEED that additional, or visual, info.  I'd like it though.  Right now, I have no idea what my CHS is on any cache.  None of us does.  To be able to see the state of my caches at a quick glance would be useful, I think, especially as I hide a few more and have more caches to follow up on.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

I wouldn't want the system to make you feel obligated to rush out at the slightest hint of a possible problem.

The system isn't what makes me feel obligated - I make that up myself!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Right now, I have no idea what my CHS is on any cache. 

 

I am certain that my CHS scores are fine because the caches are being found and are in reasonably good shape based on visiting them and the last logs. I haven’t received the CHS email bot message. Nor do I expect to. 

 

 I would rather not see the CHS score because then I will fixate on it. I’ll want to know why my fabulous cache that I keep in tip tip shape is getting a 7.5 when the set em and forget em cache with 2 recent DNFs followed by a TFTC found it log, is getting a 7.6. I’ll wonder why one of my caches doesn’t have the same health score as the other cache. Best to keep it hidden away. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I am certain that my CHS scores are fine because the caches are being found and are in reasonably good shape based on visiting them and the last logs. I haven’t received the CHS email bot message. Nor do I expect to. 

 

 I would rather not see the CHS score because then I will fixate on it.

I should have added that I, too, am certain my scores are fine, for the reasons you stated.  Having a visual reminder on my own cache pages would not cause me to fixate on it; the green light would rather be an acknowledgement that GS knows I'm taking care of my caches.  I don't need the specific score, just a general green, yellow, or red indicator of where the cache is at would be useful to me.  I wouldn't expect any of mine now to even get to yellow, but who knows what will happen when I double or triple my number of owned caches?  Too many yellow light means SLOW DOWN in my placments, and too many reds means I've got too many caches!!

 

And yes, I'd probably already know that too.  The visual is more of a confirmation; not necessary but helpful to me.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I don't necessarily NEED that additional, or visual, info.  I'd like it though.  Right now, I have no idea what my CHS is on any cache.  None of us does.  To be able to see the state of my caches at a quick glance would be useful, I think, especially as I hide a few more and have more caches to follow up on.

Right, but since the CHS doesn't do you any good, wouldn't it be better for you if it just didn't exist so you didn't have to worry about it?

 

3 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

I wouldn't want the system to make you feel obligated to rush out at the slightest hint of a possible problem.

The system isn't what makes me feel obligated - I make that up myself!

Exactly. The COs we want are the ones that don't need to be made to feel like there's a problem with their cache because they already know when there's a problem with their cache. The CHS is designed for a world in which COs need to be pushed otherwise they'll ignore problems. COs that are willing to ignore problems won't maintain their caches no matter what the CHS says.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

The CHS is designed for a world in which COs need to be pushed otherwise they'll ignore problems. COs that are willing to ignore problems won't maintain their caches no matter what the CHS says.

So, what this says to me is that we, as CO's have no use or need to see the CHS.  It will not motivate bad CO's to be better, and will do nothing for good CO's except to validate that they are good CO's.  It's a tool for the Reviewers to see caches that are in trouble and try to motivate those CO's to do better.  We, as good CO's, have no need to be concerned with the CHS.  A bad CO will not be motivated by a bad CHS score (or a canned email or Reviewer nudge for that matter).  The CHS seems to be geared towards marginal CO's who MAY respond  to a canned email or Reviewer nudge...  Hmmmm, food for thought.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, dprovan said:

 Right, but since the CHS doesn't do you any good, wouldn't it be better for you if it just didn't exist so you didn't have to worry about it?

 

 

I think they should put it under wraps. It could still exist as a reviewer tool but no more CHS emails. Take the CHS chapter out of the help centre. It's causing too much angst. It will probably be easier on the Groundspeak team. 

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think they should put it under wraps. It could still exist as a reviewer tool but no more CHS emails. Take the CHS chapter out of the help centre. It's causing too much angst. It will probably be easier on the Groundspeak team. 

 

I'm thinking there's a lot more angst in this forum than there is out in the big ol' world out there... And all the examples any one of us brings in is entirely anecdotal. If 90% of us in the forum report problems, that doesn't necessarily translate to 90% of the world having problems. This forum draws the negative =P

 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

So, what this says to me is that we, as CO's have no use or need to see the CHS.  It will not motivate bad CO's to be better, and will do nothing for good CO's except to validate that they are good CO's.  It's a tool for the Reviewers to see caches that are in trouble and try to motivate those CO's to do better.  We, as good CO's, have no need to be concerned with the CHS.  A bad CO will not be motivated by a bad CHS score (or a canned email or Reviewer nudge for that matter).  The CHS seems to be geared towards marginal CO's who MAY respond  to a canned email or Reviewer nudge...  Hmmmm, food for thought.

I'm not convinced it will do positive things even for marginal COs. It's as likely to make them feel unappreciated as it is to motivate them. But even if it does motivate some small set of COs in the middle, it's touted as The Solution to all bad caches, a stunning New Way to improve geocache quality for the good of all geocacher-kind. Those sometimes-not-entirely-on-the-ball cachers in the middle don't strike me as a significant factor in the overall geocaching quality. If the CHS is only going to possibly improve a small number of caches, I say it's not even remotely worth the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I think they should put it under wraps. It could still exist as a reviewer tool but no more CHS emails. Take the CHS chapter out of the help centre. It's causing too much angst. It will probably be easier on the Groundspeak team. 

Keeping it as a reviewer secret would be animprovement, but I'm against the reviewers being responsible for tracking cache quality to begin with. If they aren't axing geocaches unilaterally anymore, they don't need the CHS tool to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post

Well as long as we're down to "I feels" and "I thinks", then I think the objective portion of the argumentation is complete and it'll become another opinion battle based on personal experiences and objservations. :P  We don't have enough facts to form actual truth claims applicable to all, only conjectures and theories of which we are some of least qualified to weigh in on, not working at Groundspeak or behind the scenes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Well as long as we're down to "I feels" and "I thinks", then I think the objective portion of the argumentation is complete and it'll become another opinion battle based on personal experiences and objservations. :P  We don't have enough facts to form actual truth claims applicable to all, only conjectures and theories of which we are some of least qualified to weigh in on, not working at Groundspeak or behind the scenes.

I'm not sure what objective portion you're imagining. Everything anyone's ever said about the CHS has been conjecture and opinion. My main beef is the unsupported assertion that it will do something to improve cache quality, something I'm guessing you consider an objective fact.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, dprovan said:

My main beef is the unsupported assertion that it will do something to improve cache quality, something I'm guessing you consider an objective fact.

 

Obviously not, there's no way a future prediction can be an objective fact.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Obviously not, there's no way a future prediction can be an objective fact.

Oh. Then what do you consider the "objective portion" of the CHS discussion? That it will improve things is the only point I can think of that many people seem to take as unarguable.

Share this post


Link to post

Observations to take into consideration as cachers on the user-end of the system in place having only that small window of visibility into the system.

Personally, observations (not biased interpretations of observations) are what I'm most interested in when it comes to discussions like this.

 

And then discussion can move into ideas and proposals (subjective) that analyze those observations and suggestions given our limited exposure to, well pretty much most everything else about the system; recognizing that Groundspeak is under no obligation to listen or heed (arguably often to their detriment) to comments any number of us may consider good.  And soon as the subjective arguments start going in circles, or the ad hominems start flowing, we know a wall has been hit.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...