Jump to content

Excessive owner maintenence logs!


learn2mine

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

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

I think most people understand the concept of what constitutes a search and most use the DNF correctly.   It's only a handful of cachers that don't get it.   I'd say the CHS interprets dnf's the way most people do which makes the way some use them mindboggling. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour 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.

No the point is a DNF says you searched for the cache and didn't find it.    The CHS, like myself, sees three or four of these in a row as a sign something could be wrong and the e-mail asks us to take a look. 

 

It's as simple as that.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, 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.    

Good luck with that.

 

24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I think most people understand the concept of what constitutes a search and most use the DNF correctly.

Yeah, they just think "what constitutes a search" is a little different from each other sometimes.

 

 

Quote

No the point is a DNF says you searched for the cache and didn't find it.    The CHS, like myself, sees three or four of these in a row ONE OR MORE OF THESE as a sign something could be wrong and the e-mail asks us to take a look OR ARCHIVE THE CACHE.

It doesn't always take three or four DNFs to trigger the CHS.

Edited by niraD
clarity
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

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.

Which is why the CHS is wrong to treat DNFs as if they were NMs.

 

36 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I read the e-mail and thought it was helpful.

In what way is it helpful? It says your cache might need maintenance and then says "The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed". But, duh, I'm the CO, I've already read the recent logs and decided whether or not any action is needed. It isn't helpful, it's either wrong or telling me something I already know.

 

42 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Besides when you receive the e-mail you don't HAVE to do anything. 

So where in the email or the Help Centre does it say that? We were told by our reviewers that doing nothing isn't an appropriate response even when you know it's a false positive, as that will signify to them that you're an unresponsive CO.

 

45 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

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. 

Where is there any requirement for a CO to check on their cache in response to a DNF? If it's an NM, sure, but the Guidelines and Help Centre are totally silent on what a CO needs to do in response to a DNF or even several of them. On many occasions, I'll respond to a DNF by communicating privately with the DNFer, asking them if they'd like further hints, but the CHS doesn't see any of that. On other occasions, the content of the DNF makes it clear that no owner response is needed, like ones that say they were put off my muggles, mosquitoes, failing light, approaching storms or, for my coastal caches, wrong tides or big seas. But the CHS doesn't see any of that, it just sees DNF=cache-might-be-missing. If the DNFer really wants me to check on the cache, they should add the "Cache might be missing" NM as that's precisely the situation that canned log type was created for, and leave DNFs to just say "I tried to find the cache but didn't succeed".
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I think most people understand the concept of what constitutes a search and most use the DNF correctly.   It's only a handful of cachers that don't get it.   I'd say the CHS interprets dnf's the way most people do which makes the way some use them mindboggling. 

 

Here's a few samples of DNFs I've received:

 

Quote

After fetching the WP2 numbers I calculated and headed off to GZ, which I have since checked as correct. These days I am useless around large rock piles, and with a massive storm arriving I called it a day. I might return with additional eyes and someone else to crawl around GZ.

 

Quote

Seems as though someone lives within the rock formations. Try again another day, mozzies eating us alive.

 

Quote

Well, I didn't actually get to GZ yet, I was stuck on WP2 and have no way of continuing. We enjoyed the walk to WP1 and today set out after the bull's second sighting. At WP2 I searched a lot on an easy level but couldn't get to the level where I am sure I needed to be, although I did easily reach the top level above it. The walk there was very enjoyable, with so many birds around today we had to keep stopping to identify them. If I do get back there with company some time and continue, this will be a favourite!

 

Quote

Had a great time exploring the creek, but the search for cache was too late in day so decided to call it quits after 20min or so to grab the other cache in area before daylight was gone.

 

Quote

The geocaching app decided not to cache the images... spent 10 minutes bush-bashing around WP1... now that I can finally look at the pictures I can see that I wasn't searching in the right spot. Lovely area and I will be back one day to explore more ?

 

Quote

We've been saving Umina's Potholes for a lovely summer day like this ...only we have arrived too late as GZ is totally submerged lol! Ooops. We had planned to get here by mid-tide at least but due to no fault of the CO, we got a bit mixed up with the parking and the trail in and long story short we lost about 45 mins. But it's totally ok 'cause we have it sussed now and will deffo be back here - awesome spot!

 

That last one was on my EarthCache so it was hardly missing, just only accessible at low tide as it says in the description. In fact none of those DNFs in any way suggest a missing cache or any expectation for me to take action and log an OM in response. Or are all of these people using the DNF log incorrectly and, if so, where in the Guidelines or Help Centre does it say that?

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, niraD said:
8 hours ago, 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.    

Good luck with that.

If you and others that think like you changed,  that would be lucky.    I'm hoping common sense will prevail here and over time people will see that simply making a small and very easy change to the way they use DNFs will help make the game better.  

8 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, they just think "what constitutes a search" is a little different from each other sometimes.

 

An because of that they're now posting logs that misrepresent they're  experience and could directly harm a cache.   I've tried to convince myself getting to the parking area and never leaving my car could constitute a search but I just can't get there.   I just can't tell a cache owner I couldn't find their cache when I never really looked for it in the first place.  

 

8 hours ago, niraD said:

It doesn't always take three or four DNFs to trigger the CHS.

This is really the whole crux of your argument.  False positives and high D/T caches that are being asked to look at there caches.   I'm still not convinced these issues haven't been corrected.  In fact this whole argument has been based on one or two examples that happened long ago.  In my little caching world I don't know of one person who has received this e-mail.   I'm sure some have but instead of complaining about it they've decided to work with it because they get what it's all about. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

In fact this whole argument has been based on one or two examples that happened long ago. 

 

This is simply not true. There have been many instances of false positives reported in the forums, some just a few months ago, one of the more recent ones which was pinged after just two DNFs followed by a find!

Link to comment
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Which is why the CHS is wrong to treat DNFs as if they were NMs.

If we're not talking about false positives here then no they don't.   It takes multiple dnfs to trigger anything and even then you'll probably only receive an e-mail asking you to take a look which most cache owners would probably do anyway.     Again this is all based on having to check up on caches that are difficult to reach.   I've already dismissed the argument the e-mail is harassment or somehow annoying. 

 

The log examples you posted are exactly the reasons why I don't like DNFs used in those situations.  Seems none of them actually searched at GZ so they have no idea what the condition of the cache is yet they decided to post DNFs which needlessly lowers your cache score.   There's nothing in those logs that couldn't be conveyed using a note which would have no effect on your cache what-so-ever.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is simply not true. There have been many instances of false positives reported in the forums, some just a few months ago, one of the more recent ones which was pinged after just two DNFs followed by a find!

 

I don't recall actual examples. Just people saying they heard about a cacher that it happened to, but I don't remember GC#s provided.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

If we're not talking about false positives here then no they don't.   It takes multiple dnfs to trigger anything and even then you'll probably only receive an e-mail asking you to take a look which most cache owners would probably do anyway.     Again this is all based on having to check up on caches that are difficult to reach.   I've already dismissed the argument the e-mail is harassment or somehow annoying. 

 

The log examples you posted are exactly the reasons why I don't like DNFs used in those situations.  Seems none of them actually searched at GZ so they have no idea what the condition of the cache is yet they decided to post DNFs which needlessly lowers your cache score.   There's nothing in those logs that couldn't be conveyed using a note which would have no effect on your cache what-so-ever.

 

Please tell me where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says that DNFs are for reporting on the condition of the cache, because for the life of me I can't find it. All I can find is this:

 

Quote

Didn't Find It

Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

 

It used to be that an NM log was for reporting on the condition of a cache and a DNF just said "I tried to find it but didn't succeed." All of those DNF logs I quoted (and that's just a small sample, I've had plenty more like those and logged some myself) were from people who set out to find the cache but didn't succeed. Why aren't they valid DNFs????

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

This is simply not true. There have been many instances of false positives reported in the forums, some just a few months ago, one of the more recent ones which was pinged after just two DNFs followed by a find!

To me that's not an argument because it's a small sample size of one experience.   How about all the situations where the e-mail prompted someone to go out and fix up a cache?   How about all the caches that were rightfully disabled because the cache owner wasn't responding to the  e-mail because they were long gone?   You don't here about these for obvious reasons.   You're telling me these situations don't exist?    It's an issue for you because you received one of the false positives so your perception of the CHS is skewed and you've decided to lash out against the whole idea.   I don't blame you for being upset about it.  I do blame you for twisting the CHS and the e-mail into something it's not and trying to convince others likewise.     

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Please tell me where in the Guidelines or Help Centre it says that DNFs are for reporting on the condition of the cache, because for the life of me I can't find it. All I can find is this:

 

 

It used to be that an NM log was for reporting on the condition of a cache and a DNF just said "I tried to find it but didn't succeed." All of those DNF logs I quoted (and that's just a small sample, I've had plenty more like those and logged some myself) were from people who set out to find the cache but didn't succeed. Why aren't they valid DNFs????

"Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.  

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=107&pgid=534

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

To me that's not an argument because it's a small sample size of one experience.   How about all the situations where the e-mail prompted someone to go out and fix up a cache?   How about all the caches that were rightfully disabled because the cache owner wasn't responding to the  e-mail because they were long gone?   You don't here about these for obvious reasons.   You're telling me these situations don't exist?    It's an issue for you because you received one of the false positives so your perception of the CHS is skewed and you've decided to lash out against the whole idea.   I don't blame you for being upset about it.  I do blame you for twisting the CHS and the e-mail into something it's not and trying to convince others likewise.     

 

Oh for the last time this isn't about me! I've said right from the outset, right back in 2015 when the CHS was first introduced and long before my cache was pinged for one DNF, that using DNF logs as a measure of cache health was a terrible idea because MOST DNF LOGS DON'T MEAN THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CACHE. Don't believe me? Go back to the original forum posts announcing the CHS in mid 2015 and you'll find one from me saying precisely that. We already have a mechanism for reporting cache problems, it's called the NM log, and I'd be quite happy if the CHS just looked at those and pinged COs who haven't responded to them, but no, it has to count DNF logs and infer something from them that the logger never intended. That's just plain wrong. I suspect the main reason the CHS was introduced in the first place was because all the focus was on using the app for caching and at the time you couldn't log NMs or NAs from it. That's now changed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Just now, justintim1999 said:

"Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it. DNF logs are an important log type — they inform cache owners and other finders that a cache may be extra difficult to find or possibly missing. DNF stands for “Did not find”.

 

See that word OR? It doesn't say AND, is says OR. And see that word MAY? Those two things aren't an exclusive list, a DNF can say a whole lot of other things besides those two. A DNF doesn't have to imply that a cache might be missing; it can, if that's what the logger wants to say, but it doesn't have to and often doesn't. For most of my DNFs, I'm pretty sure the cache isn't missing and guess what? In over 80% of my DNFs, it wasn't. If I think the cache might be missing, I'll log a "cache might be missing" NM along with the DNF, and conversely, if I don't log an NM with the DNF, I'm pretty sure (or in some cases certain, like when I can see it but can't reach it or someone else has logged a find between when I searched and got home to write my DNF) the cache is fine and all my DNF is saying is that I tried to find it but failed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Oh for the last time this isn't about me! I've said right from the outset, right back in 2015 when the CHS was first introduced and long before my cache was pinged for one DNF, that using DNF logs as a measure of cache health was a terrible idea because MOST DNF LOGS DON'T MEAN THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE CACHE. Don't believe me? Go back to the original forum posts announcing the CHS in mid 2015 and you'll find one from me saying precisely that. We already have a mechanism for reporting cache problems, it's called the NM log, and I'd be quite happy if the CHS just looked at those and pinged COs who haven't responded to them, but no, it has to count DNF logs and infer something from them that the logger never intended. That's just plain wrong. I suspect the main reason the CHS was introduced in the first place was because all the focus was on using the app for caching and at the time you couldn't log NMs or NAs from it. That's now changed.

I agree most DNFs don't indicate a problem but the simple fact is they can, and the more of them in a row increases that likelihood.   I'm with ya that high difficulty and terrain caches should be given more slack when it comes to DNFs but to say they have no bearing on a caches condition is not true and using them out of context just adds to the confusion.  

 

When someone posts a DNF on one my caches I take notice.  If multiple people post them I check up on the cache whether or not I receive an e-mail asking me to.   This is just normal cache owner stuff.    I want people to find my cache and in good shape.   That's why I hid it in the first place.   None of my caches are extremely hard so three DNFs on any one of them is a reason for me to get involved.   I don't need the CHS or the e-mail to tell me that.    I don't think the CHS was designed for you or me or the million other cache owners out there who already take good care of their caches.  IMO it was designed to help reviewers identify those owners who do not maintain their caches or have left the game.  I also think its a way to let owners know that someone is watching and they're taking cache maintenance seriously.  

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

See that word OR? It doesn't say AND, is says OR. And see that word MAY? Those two things aren't an exclusive list, a DNF can say a whole lot of other things besides those two. A DNF doesn't have to imply that a cache might be missing; it can, if that's what the logger wants to say, but it doesn't have to and often doesn't. For most of my DNFs, I'm pretty sure the cache isn't missing and guess what? In over 80% of my DNFs, it wasn't. If I think the cache might be missing, I'll log a "cache might be missing" NM along with the DNF, and conversely, if I don't log an NM with the DNF, I'm pretty sure (or in some cases certain, like when I can see it but can't reach it or someone else has logged a find between when I searched and got home to write my DNF) the cache is fine and all my DNF is saying is that I tried to find it but failed.

Right it could be either or which means that both are possible.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Right it could be either or which means that both are possible.

 

What a DNF means is what the words in the body of the log say. Some can imply a strong likelihood that the cache might be missing, but some don't say anything of the sort, like those ones I quoted earlier. Without being able to read that content, the CHS can't tell one from the other.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

See this thread for some examples. Max and 99 for one seem to have gotten more than their fair share of CHS emails triggered just by a few DNFs.

Believe me when I say I wish I was the one that received the false positive  e-mail instead of you.    I'm sure I'm in a better position to deal with it than you are.   There were bound to be issues with rolling out something of this magnitude and you happen to be, at least for me, the poster child of the CHS's initial failures.   Your one of the people who's had to suffer the growing pains and I sympathize.  Believe me I do.    But how you handle the situation will go a long way toward how others view the initiative.  That is if you believe in the basic idea.   If you don't than keep arguing your point.  Who knows in the end you may be proven right.  

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What a DNF means is what the words in the body of the log say. Some can imply a strong likelihood that the cache might be missing, but some don't say anything of the sort, like those ones I quoted earlier. Without being able to read that content, the CHS can't tell one from the other.

It's not the DNF it self that indicates a problem it's when there are multiple DNFs in a row.    Nobody here thinks an owner should be concerned about one or two DNFs.  

 

What the guidelines do say is to post a DNF when you've searched for the cache and couldn't find it.    Yes the cache could just be difficult and yes the cache could be missing and yes it could be that someone was off their game that day  but a DNF posted without an actual search sheds no light on which scenario the truth.         

Link to comment
15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

<...>

 

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. 

 

<...>

 

Hey, this is a GREAT point!, Jeff!

 

If I had a challenging cache with a regular, consistent 3:1 "Not Found /Found" ratio, and all of a sudden it gets a long string of "Found" logs with NO "Nots", the I sure hope the CHS would flag it as possibly needing maintenance! Most likely, as you said, somebody left it compromised!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

A cache published with three DNFs in a row.   If it wasn't your cache what would you think.   I'd think that maybe the cords were off or something was initially wrong with the hide.   It's enough to warrant the cache owner to at least take a look.   If you didn't receive the e-mail would you have checked up on it anyway?  If not how many more DNF would it have taken for you to take a look?   Not being critical here I'm just curious as to how another cache owner would handle this situation. 

 

Another question.   Why the OML on 9/30 after a find?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

It's not the DNF it self that indicates a problem it's when there are multiple DNFs in a row.    Nobody here thinks an owner should be concerned about one or two DNFs.  

 

What the guidelines do say is to post a DNF when you've searched for the cache and couldn't find it.    Yes the cache could just be difficult and yes the cache could be missing and yes it could be that someone was off their game that day  but a DNF posted without an actual search sheds no light on which scenario the truth.         

And this is where the problem is at, some people search for 30 minutes before logging a DNF, some log a DNF when they can't get within 500 feet of GZ.

 

Just now, justintim1999 said:

A cache published with three DNFs in a row.   If it wasn't your cache what would you think.   I'd think that maybe the cords were off or something was initially wrong with the hide.   It's enough to warrant the cache owner to at least take a look.   If you didn't receive the e-mail would you have checked up on it anyway?  If not how many more DNF would it have taken for you to take a look?   Not being critical here I'm just curious as to how another cache owner would handle this situation. 

 

Another question.   Why the OML on 9/30 after a find?

If this was on my list and a D1.5 I would bypass it, as a D3 I would make it a point to search for it.

I do maintenance spring and fall for all my caches at the same time, it wouldn't matter if the last find was a day before.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

<...>   but a DNF posted without an actual search sheds no light on which scenario the truth.         

 

Nonsense.

 

It CAN'T shed light on which scenario is the truth. Let's say everyone ONLY files DNFs when they get to GZ and search, as you've said you believe to be proper procedure. Two logs:

  • "I can't find it because I'm brand new at this and I don't know what to look for, DNF.", and
  • "Searched ALL possible locations as I've done 10,000 times before and found the container in pieces. DNF."

 

It's the TEXT that differentiates them, based on the subtleties of language usage, so you can't even use keywords.

 

You seem to think that it's OK to throw imprecise input from PEOPLE into a computer algorithm and expect to get gold out of it, and that's just not reality.

 

If this were Google, you might have millions of dollars to spend on fuzzy-logic programmers to make random typing into TRULY meaningful and mostly accurate search criteria, but that ain't this.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:

some people search for 30 minutes before logging a DNF

No question this is a DNF.

 

1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:

some log a DNF when they can't get within 500 feet of GZ.

IMO this is a note or maybe a NM depending on the situation.

 

2 minutes ago, 31BMSG said:

I do maintenance spring and fall for all my caches at the same time, it wouldn't matter if the last find was a day before.

Me also.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

No question this is a DNF.

 

IMO this is a note or maybe a NM depending on the situation.

 

Me also.

In someone else's opinion it's a DNF so who is correct? There is no standard only guidelines, how is the CHS going to accurately measure a metric that has no standard?

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

"I can't find it because I'm brand new at this and I don't know what to look for, DNF

This is a legit DNF regardless of how inexperienced the cacher is.   New cacher problems come with the territory.  

 

5 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Searched ALL possible locations as I've done 10,000 times before and found the container in pieces

Since a search was conducted a DNF, NOTE or NM would be ok here depending on what was found and how certain the cacher was that the pieces they found we're indeed from the cache.    If I read this on one of my cache pages I'd probably want to take a look. 

10 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

It's the TEXT that differentiates them, based on the subtleties of language usage, so you can't even use keywords.

 

You seem to think that it's OK to throw imprecise input from PEOPLE into a computer algorithm and expect to get gold out of it, and that's just not reality.

 

If this were Google, you might have millions of dollars to spend on fuzzy-logic programmers to make random typing into TRULY meaningful and mostly accurate search criteria, but that ain't this.

 

This is not excuse for not posting the log that best describes the situation.   The text within a log makes the reason for the log clearer but the log itself should convey certain basic information.   It's this basic information that the CHS uses to give reviewers a ballpark snapshot of each cache.    

Link to comment
1 minute ago, 31BMSG said:

There is no standard only guidelines

I think there is.   When I read  "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it."  I see that as reaching GZ and searching for the cache.     Considering people (reviewers and cachers alike)  will use that information to form an opinion on the condition of that cache and whether or not they're going to attempt it,  it seems relevant that they understand that I did meet those specific requirements.        

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

I think there is.   When I read  "Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it."  I see that as reaching GZ and searching for the cache.     Considering people (reviewers and cachers alike)  will use that information to form an opinion on the condition of that cache and whether or not they're going to attempt it,  it seems relevant that they understand that I did meet those specific requirements.        

You see a DNF as that, I see a DNF as that, but that doesn't prevent others logging a DNF because they couldn't drive right to the cache. Again, where is the standard for logging a DNF that will be used to determine cache condition?

 

"Considering people (reviewers and cachers alike)  will use that information to form an opinion on the condition of that cache and whether or not they're going to attempt it,  it seems relevant that they understand that I did meet those specific requirements." Do you read the logs or just count the number of DNF before you form your opinion? Does the CHS read the logs or just count the DNF before it forms an "opinion"? I got into the discussion back when it was about the CHS making the determination about cache condition, now it seems to have changed to reviewers and cachers making the determination. I'm happy to argue the pros and cons of something but arguing an agenda I don't have time for.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Ladies and Gentlemen,  this whole discussion isn't a deal breaker.   I'm not suggesting a huge shift in the way people play the game.  I'm asking that we look at the game as it is today and ask ourselves if how we're playing it is having a negative impact.   Back before the CHS I don't think DNFs were considered by players to be that big a deal and they probably weren't.    Now that we know they play a role in the health of a cache (and they can) I'm at a loss for words as to why we'd not at least consider the situations in which we'd post one.   I don't think the e-mail is providing information about the condition of a cache that a good cache owner doesn't already know.   I understand the concerns the CHS poses to those who own high D/T caches and those who have received a false positive.   What I don't understand is why people are reluctant to see what's trying to be accomplished here and be willing to work through some of these bumps in the road.         

Link to comment
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Believe me when I say I wish I was the one that received the false positive  e-mail instead of you.    I'm sure I'm in a better position to deal with it than you are.

All of us are in a better position to deal with it than the average CO. The average CO reads it and thinks there are three options: visit the cache location now, disable it and visit it within a few weeks, or archive it.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

Nobody here thinks an owner should be concerned about one or two DNFs.  

Technically true, since the CHS isn't here in the forums.

 

3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

If it wasn't your cache what would you think.

I'd think that a group decided to call off the search because it was too hot. Given that it's a D3 cache, no big deal.

 

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I'm not suggesting a huge shift in the way people play the game.

Suggest a tiny shift. Suggest a huge shift. It doesn't matter. People are going to post logs the way they post logs. Even if everyone here in the forums agreed with you, still the vast majority of geocachers would continue to post logs the way they post logs.

 

14 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

What I don't understand is why people are reluctant to see what's trying to be accomplished here and be willing to work through some of these bumps in the road.       

Perhaps because good caches (not everyday 1/1 or 2/2 caches that are a dime a dozen, but exceptional caches that are really worth searching for and finding) are being archived because of the impression the current "bumps in the road" give those COs when they get the "friendly reminder" demanding either a pointless visit to the cache location or that the cache be archived.

Edited by niraD
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Back before the CHS I don't think DNFs were considered by players to be that big a deal and they probably weren't.    Now that we know they play a role in the health of a cache

 

No, we don't know. We are just guessing something about the CHS. Today I got my first "Your geocache might need maintenance." message from CHS for a long time. I am not going to do anything, not even post a virtual maintenance log, because there is no problem reported from the GZ.

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
15 hours 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.

12 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Which is why the CHS is wrong to treat DNFs as if they were NMs.

 

Noooooo it doesn't. It really irks me when people keep claiming the CHS assumes that DNFs mean a cache is missing or has problems! *sigh* I just can't even any more...

 

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

This is simply not true. There have been many instances of false positives reported in the forums, some just a few months ago, one of the more recent ones which was pinged after just two DNFs followed by a find!

 

Because there's more to the algorithm than "UH OH DNF ALERT ALERT FIX OR ARCHIVE!", including false positives *sigh*

Again, if the CHS assumed a DNF meant a cache is missing, then EVERY cache with a DNF would be getting pinged. They're not. The CHS does not treat a DNF log like a cache has a problem.

 

2 hours ago, 31BMSG said:
2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

No question this is a DNF.

 

IMO this is a note or maybe a NM depending on the situation.

 

Me also.

In someone else's opinion it's a DNF so who is correct? There is no standard only guidelines, how is the CHS going to accurately measure a metric that has no standard? 

 

I think this is the crux of the issue. DNFs can mean many things, and the CHS weighs DNF logs, amongst other factors to which we are not privvy, to determine whether to judge a cache as potentially needing an owner checkup, in order to pre-emptively avert a possible negative geocache finding experience. Like those other factors, nothing is a guarantee. When you combine a whole lot of possible-but-not-certain factors (this is before public reports of issues), you are bound to get some false positives.

The impressive the email gives is more urgent and essential than necessary, to those who don't know any better, but what's the drawback? A CO needlessly goes to verify the cache is still in findable condition - that's a win for followup finders, at the expense of an owner's inconvenience (one who doesn't know better, and who hasn't communicated with a reviewer or anyone else more knowledgeable at all)

 

NO ONE - let along Groundspeak - believes that a DNF means a cache IS MISSING. People need to stop claiming that's what the CHS assumes.

 

 

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

Perhaps because good caches (not everyday 1/1 or 2/2 caches that are a dime a dozen, but exceptional caches that are really worth searching for and finding) are being archived because of the impression the current "bumps in the road" give those COs when they get the "friendly reminder" demanding either a pointless visit to the cache location or that the cache be archived.

 

If a cache like that is archived by a reviewer, it's the fault of the CO. There has to be a valid reason for the archival; the CHS did not do it. I would agree though that it is unfortunate if we lose caches archived by their owners because they're either angry/frustrated at getting pinged, or don't know any better. But for the former, I lay that too on the owner. For the latter, that's about the only situation that'll get my sympathy, and I blame that on the email wording.

 

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Today I got my first "Your geocache might need maintenance." message from CHS for a long time. I am not going to do anything, not even post a virtual maintenance log, because there is no problem reported from the GZ. 

 

If that's a risk you're willing to take, go for it.  I'd do the same if I was certain there's no problem with the cache. I would be aware though that reviewers can see that I haven't responded and that my cache's score is below threshold due to the algorithm. But I'd trust that they'd interpret the cache's actual status the same way I did and not take action against it.  I'd wait until (if it happens) an actual problem is reported, or I think there might actually be a problem, and hope that reviewers would also wait, letting me manage my own cache.

 

However, I would also not be surprised if I received a message from a reviewer asking me to followup on the listing - because to their tool my cache would be showing as below the threshold without an owner action. They may suggest I post an OM even if just to get it off that list, especially if they knew I was active and paying attention. I see absolutely no problem with that.

 

I would be surprised and upset if a reviewer disabled or even archived my cache without a reported error solely because I was pinged and chose to ignore it after judging there was no problem, despite visibly being an active cache owner. I don't recall that ever being mentioned as happening in relation to CHS ping though, especially that hadn't been rectified if done in error.

Human, people. Humans always make the final decisions.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

No, we don't know. We are just guessing something about the CHS. Today I got my first "Your geocache might need maintenance." message from CHS for a long time. I am not going to do anything, not even post a virtual maintenance log, because there is no problem reported from the GZ.

There has to be something that triggered the e-mail.     Not even a single dnf?          

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If a cache like that is archived by a reviewer, it's the fault of the CO. There has to be a valid reason for the archival; the CHS did not do it. I would agree though that it is unfortunate if we lose caches archived by their owners because they're either angry/frustrated at getting pinged, or don't know any better. But for the former, I lay that too on the owner. For the latter, that's about the only situation that'll get my sympathy, and I blame that on the email wording.

Yes, it's the fault of the CO for archiving the cache. But I think Groundspeak has to take some blame for the way the CHS promotes an environment that feels hostile to the owners of such caches.

 

10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There has to be something that triggered the e-mail.     Not even a single dnf?          

:laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Many DNF:s but not a one where geocacher reports that the cache may be missing.

 

There's no "report" that a cache may be missing (as far as we know, the CHS doesn't analyze log text). An actual report would come in the form of NM or NA, which becomes a reviewer and public issue.

 

10 minutes ago, niraD said:

Yes, it's the fault of the CO for archiving the cache. But I think Groundspeak has to take some blame for the way the CHS promotes an environment that feels hostile to the owners of such caches. 

 

"hostile"?  Geocide never goes over well... It's backlash that ultimately hurts the community (if they're good caches) more than Groundspeak.  And if someone thinks the email is hostile in its wording merely because it doesn't give another option that isn't inconvenient if maintenance is believed to be unnecessary, then... as they say... maybe cache ownership isn't for them? (in the context that they may be taking it way too seriously by their response - mainly in that they chose to geocide as a martyr move rather than simply ask a reviewer or shoot HQ an email)

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Do you have any reason to believe that that one person didn't find it?

 

Several persons have tried to find it. Only few of them have been brave enough to post a DNF as they are supposed to do anyway. It is a D5 cache and it is supposed to collect many DNF:s because it is so difficult. We can also note that the message arrived today but the last DNF was posted over 2 weeks ago.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Several persons have tried to find it. Only few of them have been brave enough to post a DNF as they are supposed to do anyway. It is a D5 cache and it is supposed to collect many DNF:s because it is so difficult. We can also note that the message arrived today but the last DNF was posted over 2 weeks ago.

So you're satisfied that the find was legitimate?  

Link to comment
1 minute ago, justintim1999 said:

So you're satisfied that the find was legitimate? 

 

Of course. In this case there would be no need for maintenance even if there was no finds at all, because no DNF log reports about any problems from the GZ. They just didn't find the way to the GZ.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Of course. In this case there would be no need for maintenance even if there was no finds at all, because no DNF log reports about any problems from the GZ. They just didn't find the way to the GZ.

As the cache stands now I don't think any owner maintenance is needed and I'm not sure why you even received the e-mail on this.  

 

Without the find I'd feel a little different about it.    A new cache published with six DNFs in a row without a find would prompt me to check on it even though it's a D5.  Too many things can go wrong out of the gate. 

 

That's not in the guidelines.   That's just me.   

Link to comment
16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:
18 hours 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.

No the point is a DNF says you searched for the cache and didn't find it.    The CHS, like myself, sees three or four of these in a row as a sign something could be wrong and the e-mail asks us to take a look.

Exactly what I said: it interprets the DNF as if it implies something it does not. The fact that it's doing that by making a statistical guess doesn't change the fact that "the cache is missing" is not and has never been what DNF was intended to say.

 

16 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

It's as simple as that.  

It is simple, but you seem intent on making it complicated.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't recall actual examples. Just people saying they heard about a cacher that it happened to, but I don't remember GC#s provided.

I'm regularly -- although I admit, not often -- seeing reviewers take action on a cache to the point of archiving it when the logs imply the cache is fine. Obviously I would have no way of knowing whether a CHS warning was sent. I thought we all agreed there were false positives, so I haven't really thought about posting them anywhere.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Exactly what I said: it interprets the DNF as if it implies something it does not. The fact that it's doing that by making a statistical guess doesn't change the fact that "the cache is missing" is not and has never been what DNF was intended to say.

 

Who, and what, is interpreting the DNF as "the cache is missing"??? Nothing, no one. Not even the CHS.  It's not even making a "statistical guess" to conclude that it's missing. It's not making any kind of definitive statement about the condition of the cache. Not at all.  Everything shows that it's only saying there's a possibility, and no that's not the same thing.

 

3 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm regularly -- although I admit, not often -- seeing reviewers take action on a cache to the point of archiving it when the logs imply the cache is fine.

 

In those cases I'd be curious of the issue is more with the cache owner than the cache. But I don't hold much priority or desire in trying to figure that out. If the reviewer made a bad decision it'll come out.

 

Just now, justintim1999 said:
6 minutes ago, dprovan said:

"the cache is missing" is not and has never been what DNF was intended to say.

 

Then why dose GS incorporate that as a negative to the CHS?    

 

A slight drop in score as a potential, yes, due to the statistical fact that sometime the reason for a DNF is that the cache is missing. But if it assumed the cache was missing by the mere existence of a DNF, then every DNF would drop the cache's score below the threshold. That is clearly and obviously not true. So GS incorporates the slight statistical chance that there could be a problem into the algorithm. That is reasonable.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:
13 minutes ago, dprovan said:

"the cache is missing" is not and has never been what DNF was intended to say.

Then why dose GS incorporate that as a negative to the CHS?    

Because GS is making a mistake. Sheesh, we've been arguing about that all this time and you don't even get that much about what we're talking about?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, dprovan said:

Because GS is making a mistake. Sheesh, we've been arguing about that all this time and you don't even get that much about what we're talking about?

I get the fact that a dnf can mean a cache is missing.   That's the point you refuse to admit. 

 

I think thebruce0 summed it up well in his last post so you and I will agree to disagree.  .   

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Who, and what, is interpreting the DNF as "the cache is missing"??? Nothing, no one. Not even the CHS.  It's not even making a "statistical guess" to conclude that it's missing. It's not making any kind of definitive statement about the condition of the cache. Not at all.  Everything shows that it's only saying there's a possibility, and no that's not the same thing.

Split hairs much? There's really no interesting difference between someone saying the cache is missing and someone saying the cache is so likely to be missing we should act as if it is until we have evidence to the contrary.

 

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:
10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm regularly -- although I admit, not often -- seeing reviewers take action on a cache to the point of archiving it when the logs imply the cache is fine.

 

In those cases I'd be curious of the issue is more with the cache owner than the cache. But I don't hold much priority or desire in trying to figure that out. If the reviewer made a bad decision it'll come out.

For the last false positive I remember, a couple weeks ago, there was nothing wrong with the cache owner, he just didn't post an OM. And, in any case, "The CO deserved it" doesn't change the fact that it was a false positive: the cache was recently found with a log explicitly explaining why the person finding it knew the cache was in good condition. The next day the reviewer archived it.

 

  • Helpful 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...