Jump to content

Excessive owner maintenence logs!


learn2mine

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.    

I think it's the exact opposite. After all, if logs were used as intended, they wouldn't have needed to invent the CHS to begin with. To some extent -- frankly, I think to a large extent -- the whole point of the CHS is to interpret how finders do now use logs because it isn't how they were intended to be used.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, dprovan said:
7 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think the CHS was designed to work with how logs were intended to be used not how people have come to use them.    

I think it's the exact opposite. After all, if logs were used as intended, they wouldn't have needed to invent the CHS to begin with. To some extent -- frankly, I think to a large extent -- the whole point of the CHS is to interpret how finders do now use logs because it isn't how they were intended to be used.

 

I think the DNF log is intended to be used to indicate that one has not found the cache, and believe that is how most geocachers use it.   I don't think that geocachers use the DNF log to suggest that a cache may need maintenance, yet that is how the CHS interprets it.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
12 hours ago, dprovan said:

I think it's the exact opposite. After all, if logs were used as intended, they wouldn't have needed to invent the CHS to begin with. To some extent -- frankly, I think to a large extent -- the whole point of the CHS is to interpret how finders do now use logs because it isn't how they were intended to be used.

Then how can the CHS interpret a DNF from a cacher who never even reached GZ?    I think the CHS takes that DNF at face value and assumes (rightfully so)   that a search was preformed without finding the cache.   Because of this DNF the cache has a lower health score than it should have which in turn makes it more vulnerable to be flagged.

 

Same can be said for someone posting a found log and indicating in the log that the cache has an issue.   Because a Needs Maintenance log should have been posted this cache has a higher health score than it probably should.   In turn it will take longer for this cache to be flagged when there's evidence that it needs owner attention now. 

 

If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.    

Link to comment
5 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I think the DNF log is intended to be used to indicate that one has not found the cache, and believe that is how most geocachers use it.   I don't think that geocachers use the DNF log to suggest that a cache may need maintenance, yet that is how the CHS interprets it.

And rightfully so.   If we define a DNF as reaching GZ and searching than three or four of these could mean the cache is indeed missing.    I think receiving the e-mail in this situation says "There could be something wrong here.   What do you think?"      The e-mail is designed to elicit a response.  Something that indicates your still active.  

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Because of this DNF the cache has a lower health score than it should have which in turn makes it more vulnerable to be flagged.

 

Why should a DNF lower the score?  All it did is state that the seeker didn't find it.  Since when did a DNF mean that a cache might need maintenance?  The algorithm is assuming a worst case scenario, that the cache is missing, and applying that to the score in a negative manner.

 

37 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.

 

That's the problem with the CHS.  DNFs should not mean that the cache needs maintenance or might be missing.  For 15 years DNFs simply meant the cache wasn't found and now it means something "more".  

 

35 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

And rightfully so.   If we define a DNF as reaching GZ and searching than three or four of these could mean the cache is indeed missing. 

 

Rightfully?  Since when did a Did Not Find mean a cache needs maintenance?  it didn't mean that for the first 15 years of geocaching but now that the CHS is in place, it means something other than what was originally intended.  3-4 DNFs could also mean the the cache is indeed in place and in good shape.  It automatically assumes a worst case scenario and lowers the score each time a DNF is posted.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Why should a DNF lower the score?

Because multiple ones can indicate a problem.    I agree that DNF's are in a grey area.   They could mean absolutely nothing or they could mean that the cache is missing.   What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.  

 

Multiple DNF's have always indicated a possible problem.   This is nothing new.   All the e-mail is asking is you take a look at it.   

Link to comment

With the risk of recharging that CHS debate (well it looks like it's already lit once again)

 

No, obviously "The DNF" does not itself indicate a cache is missing. The CHS doesn't interpret it that way.

The CHS interprets 1-or-more-DNFs, combined with other factors, by giving it a score which may bump a cache's overall health score below a threshold because DNFs posted in bulk do occasionally happen because a cache is missing or in need of maintenance.  Occasionally. Sometimes. So, they might. May. Not for certain. Possibly. The CHS rightfully (in concept, not necessarily in practice as we know it's imperfect) interprets the existence of reports-of-unsuccess-in-finding as a potential problem. If it's enough of an inferred problem by the algorithm (not necessarily triggered by a new DNF directly), then it sends a nudge.

 

Yep, regardless of the reason why someone posts their DNF (whether they searched at gz, couldn't get to gz, or couch-posted because of a puzzle they solved incorrectly)

 

That said, to me it indicates the CHS is at least partially prescriptive - assuming the original, and vague, intent of the DNF to merely indicate that a cacher couldn't find the cache (rather than trying to completely reflect the fluid way people might use DNFs from day to day) - one possible reason of course being the cache is missing.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.  

 

Only if the CO believes there is an issue.  Who knows the difficulty or problems of the hides better than the CO?  Apparently an automated CHS algorithm that bases some of its math on using a DNF as something it was never intended to mean.  I'm not disputing the fact that multiple DNFs can mean something might be wrong.  I'm disputing the fact that an automated program knows the status of a cache better than a CO does, based on the fact that multiple DNFs, according to the CHS, now mean that a cache needs maintenance instead of just meaning that multiple people didn't find it.  Since when is Groundspeak in the business of guaranteed finds, because that's basically what this system is pushing us toward.  Yes, it's also about maintenance and a "good" experience, to some extent, but that good experience is predicated upon a find, first and foremost.

 

If I believe a cache of mine is compromised in some form, I'll go out and check it.  I don't need a program to tell me to do so, based on a formula that uses DNFs as one of the main components to track possible issues.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment
Just now, coachstahly said:
30 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What's clear is that multiple DNF's should be prompting the cache owner to take a look and take appropriate action.  

 

Only if the CO believes there is an issue.

That's it.  Just take a look and decide if action should be taken. 

 

1 minute ago, coachstahly said:

I'm disputing the fact that an automated program knows the status of a cache better than a CO does

If that was the case the e-mail wouldn't exist.    The CHS would be disabling caches as it sees fit which we all know it can't do.   That's why the e-mail exists because the cache owner knows the various aspects of the cache better than anyone and can determine if those DNF's really mean anything.   The e-mail is just asking you to take a look.

 

5 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Since when is Groundspeak in the business of guaranteed finds, because that's basically what this system is pushing us toward.

I don't think so.  I think the system is pushing better cache maintenance.   No one can guarantee a find but we can increase the probability that if a cache is found it's in reasonable shape.     

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I'm disputing the fact that an automated program knows the status of a cache better than a CO does, based on the fact that multiple DNFs, according to the CHS, now mean that a cache needs maintenance instead of just meaning that multiple people didn't find it.

 

No, it means a cache might needs maintenance, and the email is worded that way. What is more accurately in dispute is the impression the email gives about the only available followup courses of action. In practice, we know physical maintenance isn't required, but the email implies that some form of action which assumes there is a problem, is required. There's an inconsistency there. Groundspeak appears to be erring on the side of annoying some COs and getting others to do potentially unnecessary checkups in order to successfully nudge other owners to check on caches where there actually does happen to be a problem, for the sake of improving the chances of people having a successful/positive finding experience. That criticism I can get behind, if the solution is better wording of the cache owner's possible courses of action.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I don't think so.  I think the system is pushing better cache maintenance.   No one can guarantee a find but we can increase the probability that if a cache is found it's in reasonable shape.

 

Then why the reliance on DNFs as part of the CHS score?  So you're saying GS is in the business of making sure that a cacher finds a cache in good condition?  Doesn't that mean that they have to actually find the cache first?  

 

3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That's it.  Just take a look and decide if action should be taken. 

 

I don't need an email telling me to go take a look.  I specifically didn't go look at my cache that got pinged because I knew that the second stage was the hardest stage, as well as the one least likely to go missing.  The CHS incorrectly interpreted successive DNFs.  I know Bruce likes saying that DNFs are only part of the story so I'll provide this as well.  The only two other things that could have factored into the CHS was the time between finds and the D/T rating, a 2.5/2.  It's a multi-cache, which don't get found nearly at the frequency of traditional caches.  No NM logs since the inception of the cache.  You tell me what the major mitigating factor was in this.

 

5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If that was the case the e-mail wouldn't exist.

 

It used to not exist and the game isn't inherently different than it is now.  When I started, the ratio of caches in my area that most likely needed maintenance was 1 in 10.  It hasn't changed in the 8 years since I started.

Link to comment
18 hours ago, dprovan said:

I already knew we didn't agree, and I agree it's not a matter of any practical concern, but I thought, nevertheless, we could come to an understanding about each other's position. When someone talks about, say, car maintenance, you're talking about doing something physical to the car, I get that. But I think geocache description, logs, and even other people's impressions should be considered part of the cache. That suggests it's maintenance when an owner needs to change any of them. It's not really that different from updating a car's firmware being considered car maintenance. That doesn't mean that a log entry of any kind needs to be filed in every case, but it does imply that if the owner does something to change one of those things and wants to tell everyone, it makes sense to do it with an OM.

 

Just to be clear, I don't care if you stick to your guns, but I do want you to be aware of why someone like me might overlook your very helpful note. I assume you'd want me to see it, so why not go ahead and call attention to it?

 

Keyword: 'change'

If all I do is confirm it's presence in the location where I hid it, then I haven't DONE anything.  An OM log implies action taken, so I don't feel it appropriate.  As it is, the powers that be have sort of forced our hand with the whole Cache Health Score thing, so the only way we can head that garbage off is to post an OM log.  Any other case, I post a Note, which is perfectly adequate for confirming to others that it's still in place.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, it means a cache might needs maintenance, and the email is worded that way.

 

It requires some action of the CO with regard to the cache (or in your words, the listing) in question, which in its own way, is a form of maintenance, even if the cache itself is in pristine condition.  Even if it's a note on the cache page letting the reviewer know you're active.  While it might not be actual "maintenance", in the truest sense of the word, it's letting the reviewer know you're active, which in their eyes, is evidence that you've done the requisite "maintenance" to keep them from taking action.

 

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Groundspeak appears to be erring on the side of annoying some COs and getting others to do potentially unnecessary checkups in order to successfully nudge other owners to check on caches where there actually does happen to be a problem, for the sake of improving the chances of people having a successful/positive finding experience.

 

Which is the biggest issue I have with the CHS.  Those owners of caches, whom most of us would agree probably need to do some maintenance, aren't checking on their caches, while I (and other COs who take their responsibilities seriously) am being asked to head off possible GS intervention by posting an unnecessary OM log after a few consecutive DNFs, despite knowing that there's nothing wrong with the cache in question.  I usually know, based on the DNF log, if there's a possible issue and will address it accordingly.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

Keyword: 'change'

If all I do is confirm it's presence in the location where I hid it, then I haven't DONE anything.  An OM log implies action taken, so I don't feel it appropriate.  As it is, the powers that be have sort of forced our hand with the whole Cache Health Score thing, so the only way we can head that garbage off is to post an OM log.  Any other case, I post a Note, which is perfectly adequate for confirming to others that it's still in place.

 

Yep.  That goes above and beyond what an OM log should indicate, yet it's now used to reset the CHS to an "acceptable" level.  I don't have a problem with OM when it's needed; I have a problem with required OM when it's not needed.

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

Then why the reliance on DNFs as part of the CHS score?

Because multiple DNF can indicate that a cache is missing!    I'm not even sure DNF's have a major impact on the CHS.   They are taken into consideration and I believe they should be. 

 

15 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I don't need an email telling me to go take a look.

I don't either but not everyone is as attune to our caches as we may be and that's what this is all about.   We being experienced cache owners should be able to see past a few false positives to the real reason why a system like this is beneficial. 

 

18 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

When I started, the ratio of caches in my area that most likely needed maintenance was 1 in 10.  It hasn't changed in the 8 years since I started.

 And since you started the number of caches out in the world has increased what? 1000 fold.  Your 1 in 10 is now 100 out of 1000.       

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Yep.  That goes above and beyond what an OM log should indicate, yet it's now used to reset the CHS to an "acceptable" level.  I don't have a problem with OM when it's needed; I have a problem with required OM when it's not needed.

 

This is where the limbo lies.  I don't think GS has a problem with an OM when it's not needed (per the 2nd point below)

* Groundspeak knows an OM log along will reset the score, and that owners post them even when believing there isn't a problem

* An OM log is a stamp of approval from the CO indicating as of that date the cache is findable

* Reviewers/HQ won't like when inaccurate OM logs are posted knowingly, or eventually determined to be wilfully misleading

* Not every OM log posted without a physical check is inaccurate or misleading

* Sometimes a cache without issue will receive an OM log just to clear the false flag

* Email is the best way to get in contact with a user, being a required point of contact for the account

* Groundspeak would rather inconvenience a few in favour of increasing the chance of a successful/good finding experience (re: instruction wording)

* Some people don't put much weight on their ownership responsibility and a nudge email is enough to get them to take action, and sometimes it's actually needed

* Some people are excellent cache owners and don't need emails to indicate when a system thinks there might be a maintenance concern

* Some people ignore the nudge email regardless of whether they think, or if there is, a problem, or not, with their cache

* Cache owners should be ready to indicate their active and attentive state at any time (or plan ahead for any known blackout periods)

* No decision is absolutely final unless otherwise noted; most any can be quickly reverse with sufficient reasoning

* A human always makes action decisions and executes them after making a judgment call

I'm sure there are other truths applicable to this whole shebang, but personally from that list of stuff, as an owner, I honestly couldn't be nearly as concerned as some people about the nudge email or followup actions. Knowing that every action goes through a human first, I can judge whether or not to take action, or how much action to take, and whether that should involve someone else higher up.  If more people understood that (the email isn't clear on that) then I don't think there'd be so much controversy.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not even sure DNF's have a major impact on the CHS.   They are taken into consideration and I believe they should be. 

 

Seriously?  Explain to me, then, why my cache got pinged.  Other than the DNFs, what would contribute to a negative CHS?

 

33 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I specifically didn't go look at my cache that got pinged because I knew that the second stage was the hardest stage, as well as the one least likely to go missing.  The CHS incorrectly interpreted successive DNFs.  I know Bruce likes saying that DNFs are only part of the story so I'll provide this as well.  The only two other things that could have factored into the CHS was the time between finds and the D/T rating, a 2.5/2.  It's a multi-cache, which don't get found nearly at the frequency of traditional caches.  No NM logs since the inception of the cache.

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
  36 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I specifically didn't go look at my cache that got pinged because I knew that the second stage was the hardest stage, as well as the one least likely to go missing.  The CHS incorrectly interpreted successive DNFs.  I know Bruce likes saying that DNFs are only part of the story so I'll provide this as well.  The only two other things that could have factored into the CHS was the time between finds and the D/T rating, a 2.5/2.  It's a multi-cache, which don't get found nearly at the frequency of traditional caches.  No NM logs since the inception of the cache.

 

My response would be: I don't know. No one but GS knows. I don't want to know. I don't want others to know. I know that the there are false positives. I believe that (for this example) my cache doesn't have problems. My judgment would be false positive. I would post an OM log to that effect - and take the risk that there isn't actually a problem with the cache, and that a reviewer is also convinced likewise.  A couple of things could happen:

1a) another DNF.  I'd likely go check it then, because there just might be a problem with the cache.

1b) another DNF - if I don't go check then a reviewer may see and take action if they feel there actually might be a problem.

1c) a NM - uh oh, if I didn't go check after I was pinged, and I posted the OM without checking, then a followup cacher reported a NM, that is not going to look good on me to the reviewer.

2) cache is found. Life goes on.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

If I believe a cache of mine is compromised in some form, I'll go out and check it.  I don't need a program to tell me to do so, based on a formula that uses DNFs as one of the main components to track possible issues.


In the words of the bard, "ay there's the rub." YOU will go out and check on it if you believe it needs maintenance. Unfortunately not all COs are as fastidious as you are. This CHS email is designed with them in mind.

Unfortunately when designing a system to help boost the game for everyone, you have to work with the lowest common denominator. When you're trying to improve caches that means the lowest common denominator is going to be the COs who NEED  the prompting the CHS email provides.

Were you the target of the CHS email? No. You're a conscientious CO; but unfortunately a wide net catches a lot of by-catch. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
16 minutes ago, STNolan said:

This CHS email is designed with them in mind.

 

And it's not getting them to clean up their caches.  It's not doing what it's intended to do.  I'm not seeing a rash of archivals due to inaction on the CO's part or caches being cleaned up in numbers that are making for better experiences.  I'm not discounting that it might be getting some small amount of caches cleaned up, but as Jeff pointed out, there are thousands more caches out there and the pendulum isn't swinging very fast in one direction or the other.  I'm not seeing a noticeable increase in unmaintained caches and I'm not seeing a noticeable increase in archivals or caches being cleaned up by COs, beyond what I've come to see as normal.

 

Let's examine the rationale behind this.  The CHS is attempting to target caches that might need maintenance.  They write an algorithm that attempts to accomplish this by identifying caches, via multiple determinants, including finds, OM logs, NM logs, D/T rating, DNFs, and length between finds, all determined to be rather objective criteria. I would assume that the algorithm uses the highest or lowest objective statistic in order to determine whether or not points should be added or subtracted.  It can't determine intent or any subjective ideas/stats/claims made within each of the log types, ratings, or length of time between finds.  Therefore, a DNF means the cache is missing (even though it might not be) while a find means it's there.  A NM log, regardless of the type, is a negative while the OM, regardless of armchair or otherwise, is a positive.  I would also assume that NM logs would weigh more heavily than DNFs, while OM logs would weigh to the positive more heavily than finds.  I would also assume that the higher the D/T combination, the less weight would go to DNFs and the lower the D/T combo, the more weight would go to DNFs.  Seems to me that combination of things makes the most sense.  

 

Here's the "rub".  For those COs who aren't as conscientious as it appears most of us in the forums are, and whom it appears the CHS is targeting their caches, the CHS means absolutely nothing, nor does the subsequent CHS email.  They have no inclination toward maintaining their caches or they would have done so already.  They're either inactive or they don't care, because if they did care, they'd maintain their caches better.  An email is NOT going to spur/nudge/encourage them to be better maintainers of their caches.  It might catch a few who have let things slip, but those are in the minority, not the majority.  The majority of the caches that the CHS is targeting are set 'em and leave 'em caches, set by COs who would rather rely on community maintenance than doing it themselves.  Throwdowns are encouraged because that means it won't get archived and the CO won't be required to disable it to replace it, leading to a cleaned up cache.  They'll file an armchair OM log to reset the score while it continues to limp along, needing maintenance or they'll let the reviewer archive it.  They don't care enough to even archive it themselves.

 

I find it amusingly naive that many on here think this email is going to get those COs, who up to this point in time have shown no inclination to do maintenance, to suddenly pivot directions and become maintainers of their caches that need maintenance.  While it's a great idea in theory, cleaning up caches that need maintenance, it's a bad practical approach, especially with regard to those who have no intention of maintaining their caches or can't because they are no longer playing.  I can't speak for every caching area, but in my area, most of the caches that I believe to need maintenance, based on what I think the CHS should indicate, are due to inactive COs or are placed by cachers who don't do maintenance.  However, I would venture to guess that this is the norm in more places than not.

 

I really hate saying this, because I think it goes against what this activity is about, but I'd be less concerned about what I see as the detrimental aspects of the CHS if they just got rid of the CHS email, and just let reviewers disable a cache that fell below the CHS if they deemed it necessary.  Even better, let it file an automatic NM log (based on the CHS) that would then follow the more traditional path used the 15 years previous to the CHS.  Let them use the CHS as a resource but take the email out of the equation.  Take the COs out of the equation, if it's truly an objective, quantifiable attempt to determine whether or not a cache might need maintenance.  Those that care will take care of it while those that don't, won't.  Of course, I'd much prefer they emphasize use of the traditional NM log (and the subsequent NA log if the NM log isn't addressed) and then let things naturally progress in the manner that they used to go.  Of course, I don't think that's going to happen because that means that finders of caches would need to be more active and attentive than they currently are, which is a whole other bag of problems.

 

I'd be even happier if they allowed COs to see their CHS for each of their caches, say once every 6 months or once a year, so that we can determine which caches of ours might need some attention, based on the score we currently have for each cache.  Yes, I realize that some will attempt to game the system, but a prolonged period of time between CHS reports would still allow the CHS to work as intended (hopefully) to single out caches that might need maintenance.  They're probably gaming the system right now anyway, so I don't see how letting COs see their score would create any more issues.  It would be even more effective if the reviewer had the full authority to disable it without the email being sent, or automatically post the NM log affiliated with a low CHS.  Caches would end up being cleaned up or archived, exactly as GS wants, as the database would be cleaned up of inactive COs and their caches and cleaned up caches of those COs who give even the slightest inkling of caring about maintenance.  There would actually be teeth behind the attempt to clean up the database so that every cacher has a good experience.

 

As it stands now, the reliance on preventing a CHS email and the possible subsequent reviewer action means I'm filing an OM log on caches where previously I would have posted a note.  That seems excessive to me, as does the length of this post, but there you have it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

My response would be: I don't know. No one but GS knows. I don't want to know. I don't want others to know.

 

So ignorance is bliss?  That's your rationale for this?  I know we'll never "know", but the consecutive DNFs are the only real indication that something might be wrong.  Even the length of time between finds can't really be argued because then every lonely cache out there, regardless of the actual status of the cache, is now a "target" of the CHS.  That further adds fuel to the fire of those cachers arguing that the CHS is ostensibly discouraging harder and more remote caches from caching.

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

My judgment would be false positive. I would post an OM log to that effect - and take the risk that there isn't actually a problem with the cache, and that a reviewer is also convinced likewise.

 

That's what my judgment was but rather than leave it up to the reviewer, I went out and checked on it, verifying that it was indeed, in place and just fine.  I filed the OM log, but it seems to me that I didn't actually perform any maintenance.  I only verified it was in place and in good shape, as I didn't have to replace any logs, any set of coordinates, or anything else.  That seems to me to be a bit excessive, even if it's only a one time thing.  A note would have sufficed but the CHS wouldn't be reset and would still be below the threshold and flagged.  The OM log now serves a dual purpose, one of which it was never intended to do.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I'd guess false positive?    Let's scrap the whole project.

 

Of course it's a false positive, based solely on consecutive DNFs and a small possibility that the length of time between finds played a role.  As stated in a different post, even the length of time between finds can't really be argued because then every lonely cache out there, regardless of the actual status of the cache, is now a "target" of the CHS.  That further adds fuel to the fire of those cachers arguing that the CHS is ostensibly discouraging harder and more remote caches from caching.

 

I'm not advocating for scrapping the project.  I'm advocating for getting rid of the email, as it serves no real purpose, and just letting the reviewers have the ability to either post some generic NM log related to the CHS, or directly disable it, thereby actually providing some teeth to the actual goal of cleaning up the database of inactive COs and their caches and cleaning up the database of caches from COs who don't perform maintenance (or letting them actually clean them up to prevent archival).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

As it stands now, the reliance on preventing a CHS email and the possible subsequent reviewer action means I'm filing an OM log on caches where previously I would have posted a note.  That seems excessive to me

It might, but it might not be to Groundspeak.

 

If we look at what we know, the only negative of this whole thing is that a portion of people are upset by the inconvenience of having to do something in response to some DNFs in the case of false positives, and some people are confused that it seems their only course of action is to physically go out and do something else archive.  Everything else is justified.  I believe we know emails are sent caused by other things than new DNFs posted (though I don't recall seeing any forum posts complaining about that, only the dreaded DNFs). The benefits are that anyone who posts an OM log is making a public assurance that their cache is findable, and they are an active owner. Whether or not the cache actually needed maintenance. Plus some points raised above (eg, pinging users who do need the nudge and then do necessary maintenance). Obviously Groundspeak doesn't think people posting OM logs isn't itself excessive, since the OM log has a comforting meaning to the public eye. At least as intended and properly used (regardless of actual maintenance being done). So again if someone misuses the OM log, they risk consequential action from a reviewer.

 

Just now, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

My response would be: I don't know. No one but GS knows. I don't want to know. I don't want others to know.

 

So ignorance is bliss?  That's your rationale for this?

 

Gaming the system. Is it bliss? No. But if it's public knowledge, the whole thing becomes pointless. That issue's been hashed out in the forums already.

 

2 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Even the length of time between finds can't really be argued because then every lonely cache out there, regardless of the actual status of the cache, is now a "target" of the CHS.

 

I recall owners being contacted previously (pre-nudge email) if it seemed their cache hadn't been found for a long time, prompted to make time to go check on it.

 

3 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

That's what my judgment was but rather than leave it up to the reviewer, I went out and checked on it, verifying that it was indeed, in place and just fine.  I filed the OM log, but it seems to me that I didn't actually perform any maintenance.  I only verified it was in place and in good shape, as I didn't have to replace any logs, any set of coordinates, or anything else.

 

Excellent. That's a great service to the public who might have had a concern that the cache might not be findable. Now by seeing your legitimate physical OM log and visit, they can be reasonable assured that as of your log date the cache was verified in good condition. I wouldn't call that excessive. Not unless you did that every week. Without DNFs.

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

No matter how you look at it it's 10%.  I don't know when you started but 10% of 100,000 caches is a far cry from 10% of 6 million.     

 

That still doesn't negate the fact that it was 10% then and it's 10% now.  Yes, the total number of caches is larger now than then, but the ratio is still the same.  I've been fortunate enough to cache in Europe and in over half of the US states and roughly 1 out of every 10 I find is in need of some TLC.  There's no sudden explosion of unmaintained caches.  It might seem that way because there are more, but based on where I've cached, it's still roughly the same rate as when I first started.  To say it another way, I'm not seeing a greater percentage of caches with maintenance issues.  I'm not a high numbers guy to begin with, so the amount of caches isn't as relevant to me as is the percentage of caches with possible issues.  8 years later, and 3 years after the implementation of the CHS, and the ratio is still pretty much the the same.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

The benefits are that anyone who posts an OM log is making a public assurance that their cache is findable, and they are an active owner.

 

Not if they armchair the OM.  In a perfect world, cachers would physically visit their cache.  You and I both know we don't live in a perfect world.

 

6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Excellent. That's a great service to the public who might have had a concern that the cache might not be findable. Now by seeing your legitimate physical OM log and visit, they can be reasonable assured that as of your log date the cache was verified in good condition. I wouldn't call that excessive. Not unless you did that every week. Without DNFs.

 

I would and that's where we disagree.  I shouldn't need to post an OM to verify that everything is in place as well as reset the CHS.  I created my caches so I would have to do maintenance as little as possible, not whenever I got a series of DNFs and had to go check on them to prevent GS from possibly acting based on a program that has a hunch that something might be wrong with my cache.  That seems a bit excessive to me.

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

That still doesn't negate the fact that it was 10% then and it's 10% now.  Yes, the total number of caches is larger now than then, but the ratio is still the same

But now, according to your figures,  GS is having to deal with 600,000 caches that have issues.   With those types of numbers it was inevitable that something like the CHS would have to be implemented.    There's no way anybody could know what the overall effect on cache maintenance has been since the CHS has been in effect.  I'm sure it varies from location to location. 

 

I have to think the results have been positive lest why continue using it?     

Edited by justintim1999
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Gaming the system. Is it bliss? No. But if it's public knowledge, the whole thing becomes pointless. That issue's been hashed out in the forums already.

 

For a person so adamant that facts matter, you're being awfully trusting and relying on GS's assurances that this is a good thing.  How did that work out for the virtual rewards?  (I realize there were going to be unhappy people regardless, but they botched the announcement, even though this was a good and unexpected thing they did, albeit in a manner that wasn't portrayed as positively as they would have liked, mostly here in the forums).  You're positing your ideas on the notion that this concept is working, without facts and evidence to support your opinion, only conjecture about the benefit of this program.  It's a fact that inactive COs and COs who don't maintain their caches own a large majority of the caches that need maintenance.  This email isn't going to get them to DO any maintenance because they can't (inactive) or they won't.  That means that a large majority of caches that need maintenance still aren't getting maintained in the manner GS wants them to be.

 

I'm not asking them to provide the algorithm. I'm asking them to provide each individual CO a "once-in-a-while" CHS report that allows us to see our scores so that we can prevent our caches from reaching a point where GS feels the need to step in.  I don't need to know how the score has been calculated; I only need to know what I can do to help prevent it from sinking beneath the threshold.  OR  I'm asking them to consider removing the email and allowing the reviewer to post a NM log based solely on the CHS (should they determine it's needed) that lets the public and the CO know that there's the possibility that something might be wrong with the cache in question.  If this algorithm is truly objective and quantifiable as it's purported to be, then eliminate the CO from consideration by eliminating the email.  It's poorly written, it's ambiguous, it doesn't provide for all the possibilities, and it can still lead to reviewer action.  Scrap the email and keep the CHS for reviewer use only.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

But now, according to your figures,  GS is having to deal with 600,000 caches that have issues.   With those types of numbers it was inevitable that something like the CHS would have to be implemented.    There's no way anybody could know what the overall effect on cache maintenance has been since the CHS has been in effect.  I'm sure it varies from location to location. 

 

I have to think the results have been positive lest why continue using it?   

 

You're making the assumption that all 6 million caches are active.  That's not the case.  The only thing we know for a fact is that the majority of caches that need maintenance are owned by inactive COs or COs who haven't maintained their caches.  Whether the lack of maintenance is inadvertent or an active choice, it's still not being done.  The email isn't going to spur the inactive COs into action, nor is it going to spur those who actively choose not to do maintenance into action.  That means that the majority of the caches that need maintenance still need maintenance.

 

Inevitable?  Had they stressed the importance of NM logs and then following up on inaction on the CO's part with NA logs, then there's a chance this wouldn't have been a problem.  Had they stressed the importance of maintenance of your caches, there's a chance this wouldn't have been a problem.  If they hadn't allowed power trails, there's a chance this wouldn't have been a problem.  Had they acquired more reviewers to address caches in trouble, there's a chance this wouldn't have been a problem.  Had they made logging a NM easier on the app, there's a chance this wouldn't have been a problem.  There were quite a few things they could have done to alleviate some of the issues.  Not doing any of those things made this probable.  I wouldn't go so far as to say inevitable.

 

I think it's better suited for use as a reviewer tool over anything else they have come up with and I believe that's why it's still in use.  I'm perfectly fine with it being used as a tool for reviewers, especially if they remove the email from being sent.  Let them post a public NM log based solely on the CHS.  That way everyone knows there might be an issue, but there might not be one either.  Let cachers make that decision to go find it (or not) based on what they see in the logs.  Let the CO know that the CHS pinged this and that this is the first step for the CO to address any possible issues.  LOne.R would love this because it would be obvious to know who those cachers are who haven't done enough maintenance or are inactive and the cache might be in bad shape.  Rather than make this a private interaction between the CO and GS, make it public.  Skip that first step (the email) and go right to the heart of the matter.  Give it teeth to enforce maintenance or it will lead to archival.  Those that maintain will maintain and those that don't will eventually find their cache archived.  If they're so focused on cleaning up their database so that more cachers have a good experience,  then skip the niceties and go right after the problem caches.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

Duh.  . . That was exactly the point. 

 

 Of course the number of caches has increased (as have the numbers of caches that need maintenance), but the rate of caches that need some TLC has remained steady. That still doesn't negate the fact that 1 out of every 10 caches was the ratio when I started and it's still 1 out of 10 in all the areas I've been fortunate enough to cache in.  It's not gone up, it's not gone down.  It's still 1 out of 10, 10 out of 100, 100 out of 1000, 1000 out of 10000, 10000 out of 100000, etc....  It's held at a steady rate so this claim that there's a sudden increase of caches that need maintenance doesn't hold water for me.  Yes, there are more caches now than then that need maintenance.  However, there are even more caches that don't need maintenance now than then -   9 out of 10, 90 out of 100, 900 out of 1000, 9000 out of 10000, 90000 out of 100000, etc.... My odds haven't changed; only the size of the numbers have changed.  9 times out of 10 I'll find a cache in decent shape and 1 time out of 10 I'll find a cache that needs some TLC.  Some areas that number jumps up and other areas it will decrease, but on average, it holds mostly true.

 

If I had found that 2 out of every 10 caches needed some TLC, that would be, for me, a cause for concern.  Even 1.5 out of 10 would be concerning.  That means that 150% or 200% as many caches (percentage-wise)  as when I started would have maintenance issues.  That's a sizable jump.  I just haven't seen, with my own eyes, evidence that this is the case.  Granted, it's anecdotal, but it's what I've been able to verify with my own caching experiences.  I don't do power trails and only occasionally do geo-art or large number caching days, so my numbers may be skewed based on what I find, but that's all I have to go on.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

The benefits are that anyone who posts an OM log is making a public assurance that their cache is findable, and they are an active owner.

 

Not if they armchair the OM.  In a perfect world, cachers would physically visit their cache.  You and I both know we don't live in a perfect world.

 

That was one of the points I listed below.  The benefits (for front-facing users) is that an OM is a public assurance that their cache is findable. Therefore if an owner couch-logs an OM, it's a risk that the log is now misleading.  The intent of the OM log is that it's an "All good" from the CO.

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I shouldn't need to post an OM to verify that everything is in place as well as reset the CHS.

 

Well that's where Groundspeak disagrees. You're also showing you're active and watching. And you're affirming the state of your cache for anyone who may think there could be a problem. (Yep, even if it's a couch-OM and you in good conscience judge that your cache is fine and so post the OM log)

 

55 minutes ago, coachstahly said:
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Gaming the system. Is it bliss? No. But if it's public knowledge, the whole thing becomes pointless. That issue's been hashed out in the forums already.

 

For a person so adamant that facts matter, you're being awfully trusting and relying on GS's assurances that this is a good thing.

 

No that's based on my experience with everything from web programming to thwart hacking and abuse, to SEO, to spam detection algorithms, as well as Groundspeak's opinion on the matter, which in the case, I agree with.

 

56 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 You're positing your ideas on the notion that this concept is working, without facts and evidence to support your opinion, only conjecture about the benefit of this program.

 

The only facts and opinions that influence my judgment for the system's success are feedback from reviewers who see MUCH more of the geocaching landscape than we do from behind the scenes.  I tend to trust the reviewers before branding them all mistaken or liars. They like it. Front end, do we see much difference? I dunno, hard to tell because my view is so ridiculously tiny in the grand scheme, and I honestly couldn't be bothered to do all the statistical analysis on stuff that doesnt' directly affect me, and I don't think should be nearly as controversial as it seems to be to some people.

 

59 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

It's a fact that inactive COs and COs who don't maintain their caches own a large majority of the caches that need maintenance.  This email isn't going to get them to DO any maintenance because they can't (inactive) or they won't.  That means that a large majority of caches that need maintenance still aren't getting maintained in the manner GS wants them to be.

 

First, at that point, the reviewers are already taking action. It's already been hashed out in the forum how and when the CHS takes effect and its uses; Attempting to pre-emptively identify problem caches, and in doing so can also identify inactive owners (responsibility shirkers) and so their caches can be deal with before they become a problem - by human reviewers. In all other cases, the nudge is successful - either in identifying active owners, or prompting owner followup to potential problems (even if they aren't problems in the end).

 

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not asking them to provide the algorithm. I'm asking them to provide each individual CO a "once-in-a-while" CHS report that allows us to see our scores so that we can prevent our caches from reaching a point where GS feels the need to step in.

 

Posted elsewhere (can't remember which thread), I'd support a very generic red/yellow/green style notification system owned caches. A score would be too much and can be gamed.  3 states is a good indicator. Even that can be gamed if someone analyses enough state changes to figure out what caused the up/down effect.

 

38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

The email isn't going to spur the inactive COs into action

 

But it'll identify them and reviewers can take educated action.

 

38 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

nor is it going to spur those who actively choose not to do maintenance into action.

 

Which is not an issue (presuming they are active) if no maintenance is required and the reviewer believes it. If maintenance is required, then it's already in the hands of the reviewer to deal with if the CO does not do it (because it's known that maintenance is required and is no longer a CHS 'maybe').

(note how the reviewer is in every step of this process)

 

41 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

That means that the majority of the caches that need maintenance still need maintenance.

 

If it's known they need maintenance, it's in the reviewers' hands.

If it's not yet known they need maintenance, either the algorithm needs adjusting to catch them pre-emptively, or the owner who's been pinged is proving they're unresponsive, and a reviewer can take action.

 

43 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

I think it's better suited for use as a reviewer tool over anything else they have come up with and I believe that's why it's still in use.  I'm perfectly fine with it being used as a tool for reviewers, especially if they remove the email from being sent.  Let them post a public NM log based solely on the CHS.

 

I think the reason they didn't do that (reviewers had the option to do that before this tool & email btw) is because there are so many caches out there that would call for that. I'm guessing they don't have the manpower to manually respond to every listing that's flagged by the CHS; thus the email nudge.

Which once again I agree isn't worded optimally.

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If there's no consistency in posting logs than it's garbage in garbage out.  

Exactly. And I claim that the original intended use of the logs did not include the rigid interpretation of any log type, especially DNF, that you seem to believe in. CHS is based on some imagined yet illogical consistency in what a DNF means.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Keyword: 'change'

If all I do is confirm it's presence in the location where I hid it, then I haven't DONE anything.

Yes, you have done something: you've changed how people will interpret the information in the logs. Posting the OM is the owner maintenance.

 

What's important is that the owner is posting information. Compared to that, worrying about whether you can call it "maintenance" seems pedantic even if you don't accept my argument that the English word "maintenance" makes perfect sense here, anyway.

 

4 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Any other case, I post a Note, which is perfectly adequate for confirming to others that it's still in place.

As I explained, anyone can post a Note. Nothing tells me it's the CO posting the Note without me researching the user name attached to the Note. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that most COs don't think of this and will post a Note saying "All is well" as if there's some reason for me to understand that that's the CO making an official announcement about the health of the cache. If you understand that, your Note will say "I'm the CO, and all is well", but once you've done that, why didn't you just post an OM instead, thus not wasting both our times saying "I'm the CO" and also proving you're the CO in case there's something that's making me worry about getting unauthorized pronouncements about this cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

You're making the assumption that all 6 million caches are active.

Ok 4 million.    The necessity of the CHS is based on the total number of caches that require monitoring.   The percentage of the total number that have issues will fluctuate based on new players, regions, climate and I'm sure a whole bunch of other factors.   The fact you happen to not notice any change in cache quality doesn't necessarily mean the system isn't making a difference.   As I said before the only ones that have that info is GS.  The fact they continue to use the CHS tells me it's working. 

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Exactly. And I claim that the original intended use of the logs did not include the rigid interpretation of any log type, especially DNF, that you seem to believe in. CHS is based on some imagined yet illogical consistency in what a DNF means.

As far as I can see the guidelines are straight forward and based on common sense.   How can you log a dnf if you've never actually searched for the cache.   To claim you didn't find something indicates you actually tried looking for it.   You can waist time arguing what constitutes a reasonable search and concepts about when dose a search actually begin but the simple answer is a search has occurred when you've reached GZ and looked for the cache till you've given up.   A bunch of these in a row is something a cache owner should look into.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

How can you log a dnf if you've never actually searched for the cache.

I agree with you.

 

I would hazard to guess that many of the people who post DNF logs that you disagree with, also agree with you. They just have a different definition of "actually searched for the cache" than you do.

Edited by niraD
clarity
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

As far as I can see the guidelines are straight forward and based on common sense.   How can you log a dnf if you've never actually searched for the cache.   To claim you didn't find something indicates you actually tried looking for it.   You can waist time arguing what constitutes a reasonable search and concepts about when dose a search actually begin but the simple answer is a search has occurred when you've reached GZ and looked for the cache till you've given up.   A bunch of these in a row is something a cache owner should look into. 

 

 

 

JustinTim, you're wrong here.

 

The idea that "the simple answer is a search has occurred when you've reached GZ and looked for the cache till you've given up " may be how YOU play, but that's YOU.

 

Many people file DNFs when they can't get close to GZ for a variety of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean that they got to "0 FEET" and looked around.

 

It's reasonable to consider the intent to search + taking SOME action such as driving there and not being able to park, or being turned away by the length of the hike, etc. as a "Did Not Find". Perhaps they'll try again!

 

To add to dprovan's point, for years we've been taught that (and HAVE taught that) within the guidelines, this hobby is loose enough to play the want you want. Doesn't hurt anybody.

 

To now impose a rigid definition on a basic concept, "DNF", especially without telling the players about it is just wrong. Through the CHS email, if in fact it's based on "DNFs", a CO will be threatened with extreme action based on evidence that may very well have been intended otherwisely. (Yes, it is.)

 

Sounds like a 'fix' applied to a legitimate problem, but without second-stage 'wisdom' to put it in perspective; to make sure it actually fits within the realities of the hobby.

 

So, if a cache gets dinged, then an OM log supposedly clears it up, and MORE people 'DNF' it, is it more likely to be dinged again since it has a "CHS" history? If it's way the heck up in the woods, or even if it's on a road in the OPPOSITE direction of my job, I'd hate to have to go pay repeated visits every time I get an email message. Or worse, lie about it.

Edited by TeamRabbitRun
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, niraD said:

I would hazard to guess that many of the people who post DNF logs that you disagree with, also agree with you.

How exactly dose that work?     The DNFs I disagree with fly in the face of simple logic.   If we're going to get into what a reasonable search is again that's fine but we'll just be re-hashing the same arguments we've covered before.

 

I'm up to it if you are.  But If we're going to go down this road again with you telling me that you consider a search has started before you ever leave your house,  I'd rather not.       

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

As far as I can see the guidelines are straight forward and based on common sense.   How can you log a dnf if you've never actually searched for the cache.   To claim you didn't find something indicates you actually tried looking for it.   You can waist time arguing what constitutes a reasonable search and concepts about when dose a search actually begin but the simple answer is a search has occurred when you've reached GZ and looked for the cache till you've given up.   A bunch of these in a row is something a cache owner should look into.

 

A find means you located the cache, opened the container and signed the logbook. A DNF means you tried to do that but failed. There are two things a CO puts in the way of you doing that; the difficulty of the cache (camo, etc.) and the terrain. Why is it okay to log a DNF if I'm defeated by the difficulty but not if I'm defeated by the terrain? Where does it say that in the guidelines or Help Cente? The Help Centre just says "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it." It doesn't say anything about reaching GZ or how long you have to search for. Just that you looked for the cache but didn't find it.

 

Again you keep assuming that all caches are easy to find. A bunch of DNFs on a difficult cache that's meant to get lots of DNFs doesn't mean there's something the CO should look into. The cache is working as intended! There'd be something to look into if it stopped getting DNFs - perhaps it hasn't been rehidden properly or the camo is damaged.

 

Every cache is different and the ones who know most about it are the CO and those on the ground searching for it who can log an NM if they think there's something the CO needs to check; not the reviewer and certainly not some head office log-counting algorithm.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
3 hours ago, niraD said:

I would hazard to guess that many of the people who post DNF logs that you disagree with, also agree with you.

How exactly dose that work?

As I said...

 

3 hours ago, niraD said:

They just have a different definition of "actually searched for the cache" than you do.

 

I'm not arguing in favor of their definition of "actually searched for the cache". I'm arguing that there are people who define "actually searched for the cache" differently, and therefore log DNF differently. The CHS system needs to accommodate that, because all the forum discussions and Help Center articles won't change the fact that different people post logs differently.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The point is that logging a DNF doesn't say the cache is missing, yet that's what the CHS assumes it means.

 

Exactly. In the course of my five and a half years of caching I've logged 114 DNFs. Of those, only 19 turned out to be actually missing and another 4 had moved from their correct hiding place. The rest were still there, mocking this Blind Freddy as he looked everywhere but right at them (defeated by difficulty), or were in places I couldn't reach like the one 6 metres up a tree which I couldn't quite get to with my 3.8 metre ladder (defeated by terrain). Many of the ones that weren't missing have multiple DNFs on them - they're just tough caches. Of the ones that were missing, they were all either replaced by their owner, archived by their owner, or archived by the reviewer after the usual NM-NA process or from being left disabled for too long. None were dealt with by the CHS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

As I said...

 

 

I'm not arguing in favor of their definition of "actually searched for the cache". I'm arguing that there are people who define "actually searched for the cache" differently, and therefore log DNF differently. The CHS system needs to accommodate that, because all the forum discussions and Help Center articles won't change the fact that different people post logs differently.

That's where we disagree.  I think we should change the way we use those logs to better represent what those logs actually signify.    

Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

That's where we disagree.  I think we should change the way we use those logs to better represent what those logs actually signify.    

 

A DNF actually signifies that someone was trying to find the cache but didn't succeed. Anything more is supposition.

 

And anyway, how do you propose changing the way everyone uses DNFs to suit the way some unknown algorithm interprets them????

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Many people file DNFs when they can't get close to GZ for a variety of reasons. It doesn't necessarily mean that they got to "0 FEET" and looked around.

That's the problem.   This is where a note would be more prudent and for obvious reasons.

 

34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

It's reasonable to consider the intent to search + taking SOME action such as driving there and not being able to park, or being turned away by the length of the hike, etc. as a "Did Not Find". Perhaps they'll try again!

I don't believe it is reasonable.   Especially when the type of scenario you described could also be conveyed by a note which has -0- effect on the cache. 

 

34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

To add to dprovan's point, for years we've been taught that (and HAVE taught that) within the guidelines, this hobby is loose enough to play the want you want. Doesn't hurt anybody.

But now that we have the CHS  those logs you would use loosely can now have a broader effect on a cache and it's owner.  

34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

To now impose a rigid definition on a basic concept, "DNF", especially without telling the players about it is just wrong. Through the CHS email, if in fact it's based on "DNFs", a CO will be threatened with extreme action based on evidence that may very well have been intended otherwisely. (Yes, it is.)

Is it rigid to expect someone to actually search for a cache before posting a dnf?   IMO that's ridiculous.    To say the e-mail threatens extreme action is also ridiculous.   I read the e-mail and thought it was helpful.   Others see George Orwell's 1984.    

 

34 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

So, if a cache gets dinged, then an OM log supposedly clears it up, and MORE people 'DNF' it, is it more likely to be dinged again since it has a "CHS" history? If it's way the heck up in the woods, or even if it's on a road in the OPPOSITE direction of my job, I'd hate to have to go pay repeated visits every time I get an email message. Or worse, lie about it.

I'm not sure a cache's previous history has anything to do with receiving the e-mail.  I think it's based on it's current condition.   Besides when you receive the e-mail you don't HAVE to do anything.   The e-mail aside,  if log indicate you should check on your cache then that's what you should do,  regardless of where it is.

 

If you hate the thought of having to do that then you should archive your caches and stick to just finding them.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...