Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
coachstahly

Providing COs occasional access to their CHS

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, colleda said:

Your cache was pinged in the early days of CHS. I would like to think that the algorythm has been tweaked since then which would, most likely, eliminate a repeat occurence

 

Well not quite, the CHS had been in operation for eighteen months at that time so it ought to have been pretty well bedded down by then. Mine can't have been the first T5 multi to have gotten a DNF in that time, surely.

 

But regardless of that, it would still be useful to have an amber light warning that a cache is getting close to the threshold to give the owners of high terrain caches that can be difficult or impossible to access at the drop of a hat enough time to plan a visit. A week to respond might be fine for a P&G but it's not for something like my multi.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I've always figured it would have to be something noticeable going on with a cache to get the "ping". I'm not really worried about it but it would be nice to know what caused the ping so that I could take action to help keep it from coming again. If you're not sure of the reason, then an email to Groundspeak asking about it might be in order.

 

As niraD points out, the email didn't tell me what caused it, only what might be wrong (multiple options) and what I needed to do.  It had to be a combination of 3 consecutive DNFs, 2 consecutive finds, and 3 consecutive DNFs over a 1 1/2 year period that got it pinged.  There were no other maintenance issues noted, just DNFs.  Every other log up to the point of the first set of DNFs was a find and it had a rating of 2.5/2.  As I thought, all was fine.  The second stage is where most people get hung up and there are 2 likely spots to look, one being a bit more frustrating than the other due to the many possibilities.

 

Had this idea been available I probably would have asked to see it so I could determine if it would be in my best interest to go visit.

 

This isn't some groundbreaking new idea.  It's just a way that would offer COs some additional help to prevent the occasional cache of theirs from getting to the point that might entail possible reviewer action.  Call it a preemptive action to head off a preemptive CHS.  Again, It wouldn't really change the scope of those COs who ignore such things anyway, but it might offer newer COs the chance to figure out things a bit more concisely as it pertains to their feelings about the status of their own caches.  It could validate (or invalidate) their feel for providing maintenance on one of their caches.

 

16 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The tool the reviewers have doesn't do that exact thing,

 

Statistically applies a pre-determined set of values then.  It examines the probability of whether or not a cache might need a visit from a CO.  In a nutshell, that's what we do with our caches, but without any sort of tool to help us do that.  I understand your point about the other things, but at its core, the CHS tries to do the same thing we do but without the ability to determine the "validity" of some of the logs, which is why it's my assumption that it probably allows for more DNFs (obviously not all the time as that means we'd never have false positives) than many COs would allow before going out to check on their cache themselves.  It's NEVER going to get the ability to read logs between the lines.

 

13 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

I read the logs that folks write on my caches - if there's a question in my mind that something is wrong, I will visit and either write a note, or log an OM and "fix it". 

 

That's how I do it as well and for the most part, I have a pretty good feel to how my caches are doing but I've been wrong before.  This idea isn't going to change how I approach maintenance.  Bruce always likes to point out that the CHS doesn't really change anything.  We can still do the same things we've always done.  This wouldn't change anything either.  It would just be something extra that could help COs.  GS wants better maintained caches so everyone has the likelihood of a better experience.  This seems to at least increase the possibility for some COs to get a better idea of how their maintenance meshes with the maintenance expectations of the CHS.  The CHS isn't going anywhere any time soon.

 

6 hours ago, niraD said:

Tell me WHY the system thinks my cache might need maintenance, or leave me alone.

 

It would be VERY easy for me to see why my cache was pinged by the CHS if this had been in place.  The ONLY logs that provided any possibility of a negative score were DNFs.  Therefore, it was the DNFs that triggered the CHS and it made an assumption that it might be missing (it couldn't make the assumption it was in place, as that would completely invalidate the reason for sending the CHS to begin with).  There are certainly some other caches that might have a myriad of issues that caused the CHS to send an email, and I'm guessing those caches would be harder to pinpoint the why.  However, to get to that point, the CHS algorithm would need to be able to do what Jeff wishes it could do, which is read into the logs, not just count them as statistical "points" to add or subtract to the score.  That's not happening any time soon. The reality is that the CHS is here to stay so it's not going to leave you alone, despite what you or I (among many others) might wish.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The reality is that the CHS is here to stay so it's not going to leave you alone, despite what you or I (among many others) might wish.

Yeah, and unfortunately it's contributing to the trend of owners of exceptional caches deciding they "can't fight City Hall" and archiving caches that trigger the CHS even though they're perfectly fine.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Yeah, and unfortunately it's contributing to the trend of owners of exceptional caches deciding they "can't fight City Hall" and archiving caches that trigger the CHS even though they're perfectly fine.

 

In my area the only people left hiding caches are people that are into numbers. They like to saturate areas. they archive when the reviewer pings it with a note, or do nothing and eventually the reviewer will archive it. But they continue to dominate the landscape. They don't seem to mind all the DNFs, NMs, NAs, reviewer notes, reviewer disables and likely CHS email pings. Doesn't seem to phase them at all. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


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

They don't seem to mind all the DNFs, NMs, NAs, reviewer notes, reviewer disables and likely CHS email pings. Doesn't seem to phase them at all. 

 

It is because they do not read the email and maintenance do not gain the score. Nothing motivates for quality. This kind of caches are maintained by the reviewer only :yikes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

It is because they do not read the email and maintenance do not gain the score. Nothing motivates for quality. This kind of caches are maintained by the reviewer only :yikes:

 

Yep. And I venture to guess (based on experience) that the owners who are motivated to produce and maintain quality leave for reasons like this.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:
3 hours ago, niraD said:

Yeah, and unfortunately it's contributing to the trend of owners of exceptional caches deciding they "can't fight City Hall" and archiving caches that trigger the CHS even though they're perfectly fine.

 

In my area the only people left hiding caches are people that are into numbers. They like to saturate areas. they archive when the reviewer pings it with a note, or do nothing and eventually the reviewer will archive it. But they continue to dominate the landscape. They don't seem to mind all the DNFs, NMs, NAs, reviewer notes, reviewer disables and likely CHS email pings. Doesn't seem to phase them at all. 

 

In my region, there's hardly anyone hiding caches at all now, and those that are hidden get few finds - anyone into numbers would have died of starvation. In the last six months there've been just nine new hides, one of them mine (a 1.5/3 traditional published in October that's had four finds and two of those were from outside the region). The last thing we need is further disincentives for people to hide caches or for existing caches to be disabled or archived because of false-positive CHS pings.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

In my region, there's hardly anyone hiding caches at all now, and those that are hidden get few finds - anyone into numbers would have died of starvation. In the last six months there've been just nine new hides, one of them mine (a 1.5/3 traditional published in October that's had four finds and two of those were from outside the region). The last thing we need is further disincentives for people to hide caches or for existing caches to be disabled or archived because of false-positive CHS pings.

 

 

Better quality might be more of a draw then a lot of set-em-and-forget-em caches that lack owners and good maintenance. 

Sometimes people like to connect with owners and feel part of a community they can take some pride in participating in.

When we can't separate the wheat from the mountain of chaff, it's not a game that makes one feel like the members have a general sense of pride in their activity. 

 

I did a search for caches near your Cave hide. 338 within 16km.

One hider has 145 hides, the first page of caches has 9 red wrenches, 7 archived caches, 5 of those archived by a reviewer.

A few hiders haven't been active since 2015.

There's one hider with 2 alias accounts and lots of red wrenches.

There's another with more than 5 alias accounts (plus that hider uses OMs to indicate they will get around to doing maintenance but never do). 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

 

 

Better quality might be more of a draw then a lot of set-em-and-forget-em caches that lack owners and good maintenance. 

Sometimes people like to connect with owners and feel part of a community they can take some pride in participating in.

When we can't separate the wheat from the mountain of chaff, it's not a game that makes one feel like the members have a general sense of pride in their activity. 

 

I did a search for caches near your Cave hide. 338 within 16km.

One hider has 145 hides, the first page of caches has 9 red wrenches, 7 archived caches, 5 of those archived by a reviewer.

A few hiders haven't been active since 2015.

There's one hider with 2 alias accounts and lots of red wrenches.

There's another with more than 5 alias accounts (plus that hider uses OMs to indicate they will get around to doing maintenance but never do). 

 

 

 

Well done, you've found, what, three evil hiders who've hidden caches within 16km of my cave. That one with 145 hides is not even from my area, he or she is someone who came up from Sydney and hid a few nearby in the early 2000s.

 

And yes, there's more than a few hiders who are no longer active, many of the names I see in that search haven't been caching for a long while but most of their hides remain in good condition. If they were all archived simply because their owners are inactive, it'd make a sizeable dent in the number of caches in the region. There's been very little new blood here in the last two or three years.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "alias accounts". Do you mean actual sock puppets or just that the "hidden by" field differs from their current caching name? There are some cachers who have changed their nickname over the years but their old hides still show the original name as "hidden by" unless they've gone back and edited them, and there are puzzle setters who put all sorts of things in their "hidden by" fields as part of the puzzle. The way you say it, it sounds like you think this is something evil to divert attention from their terrible hides.

 

I ran a PQ for caches that have red wrenches within 16km of my cave one and it gave 57 out of the total 338, so about 17 percent. That means the other 83 percent don't have red wrenches - that doesn't look like a mountain of chaff to me. But wait, there's more. Reading down that list of caches with red wrenches:

  • the first one had its one and only NM logged in 2010 when apparently someone didn't close the cache properly and it got wet. The next finder dried it out and replaced the log, so it's been good ever since, but the owner (who hasn't been active since 2015) never logged an OM. Judging from the recent logs (the last just over a month ago), the cache is still in good condition and still gets FPs.
  • The second cache in the list had an NM logged last June, saying the cache had been destroyed in a hazard reduction burn. The owner immediately disabled it, then a week later replaced the cache and re-enabled it, but she forgot to log an OM to clear the wrench.
  • The third on the list had its one and only NM logged 13 days ago for a cracked container and wet log. I see the CO hasn't been active since 2016 so in due course either someone will log an NA or the CHS might bring the reviewer in.
  • Fourth on the list, a D3.5/T4.5 traditional again with just one NM in its history, had it logged in 2017 asking the CO to check on it after a string of DNFs. The CO didn't as he hasn't been active since 2008, but the cache has subsequently had six finds with the finder immediately after the NM, a highly respected Sydney cacher, saying "After getting soaking wet and cool, we spent quite a while searching but in the end the cache was exactly where we expected and had looked first - it was just really well concealed." So don't think for a moment this is a throwdown, it's one of our classic old caches (circa 2006), deserving every bit of its T4.5 rating, that remains in good condition and continues to provide enjoyment to the hardier members of our community.
  • Number five on the list, a neighbourhood P&G micro hidden in 2015, has had two NMs, both for a wet log, and its owner hasn't been active since shortly after hiding it. Last June a finder replaced the log and it's had 28 finds since, none reporting any problems. It seems to be far more popular than my cave one with its four finds, but no, red wrench plus inactive owner means it needs archiving, I guess.
  • The sixth on the list had a "might be missing" NM logged on the 9th of February this year, followed by a TD by the owner on the 17th saying they need to obtain a new replacement. That's only six days ago, so maybe we can give them a few more days to do that before putting them on the evil CO list, do you think?
  • Number seven had its NM logged in 2014 when a finder accidently dropped the container into a place where it couldn't be reached, but the next searcher came prepared and managed to fish it out. Again it's one of our older caches (hidden in 2012) with an owner who hasn't been active since 2014, but the cache is still there in good nick and continues to be found.

Do I need to go on or do you get the picture yet? Just counting red wrenches doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long shot. Out of those first seven in the PQ results, only one, the third on the list, actually has a current problem that the owner hasn't responded to. The rest are either in good nick but just didn't have that wrench removed, or are still being attended to.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

12 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

A few hiders haven't been active since 2015.

 

Just as an addendum to my comments above, 70 of those 338 caches (21%) are more than 10 years old and 164 (49%) are more than 5 years old. Is it any wonder there are a lot of inactive COs amongst them? By contrast, only 15 have been placed in the last 12 months, two of those by me.

 

184 (54%) are T2.5 or higher so they're dominated by bushland hides and, as from the above, most are older caches that have stood up well to the passage of time, particularly as the smalls and regulars very much dominate the micros. Nearly all of them continue to be found and provide enjoyment to those finders.

 

image.png.ab24e729ae59caf020a7bc7e3e15ad3f.png

 

image.png.8bd7ce70eca0928f431072af0ed68a09.png

 

image.png.56dec6a5520c2f1a06f6a178725b5b94.png

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...