Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
lagjeg

A string of DNFs....

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I feel bad that the CHS forces reviewers to have to check on caches and read DNFs to determine whether they take action. What a job. What a waste of time, too, sorting out DNF logs that have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the cache.

Today I was reminded of a massively long DNF note on my cache that had zero mention of the cache itself except two words: not found.

 

Looking back through them, many of my own DNF logs are rather epic, describing in gory detail the mistakes I'd made and my degree of ineptitude that resulted in my signature not appearing in their logbook that day. Most of them probably don't mention the cache either since that's the one bit of the whole endeavour I didn't get to experience.

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

I feel bad that the CHS forces reviewers to have to check on caches and read DNFs to determine whether they take action. What a job. What a waste of time, too, sorting out DNF logs that have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the cache.

We had to do that before CHS, too.  As a reviewer, the CHS tool is an improvement, adding automation and decreasing manual work.  So, don't feel bad!

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Looking back through them, many of my own DNF logs are rather epic, describing in gory detail the mistakes I'd made and my degree of ineptitude that resulted in my signature not appearing in their logbook that day. Most of them probably don't mention the cache either since that's the one bit of the whole endeavour I didn't get to experience.

But at least that log related to the cache! I'm ok with that!

 

The one I referenced is a very lengthy cut and paste about what they did in day 1 of their trip and who they were with. Then the itinerary of Day 2, then what new state they are in for day 3, (made up events) where they stopped to celebrate a birthday, and day 4 they visited  water park with the grandkids, and day 5 they arrived at a new state.....yada yada. 

 

I'd rather have more details about their efforts at the cache than a vacation itinerary.

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I feel bad that the CHS forces reviewers to have to check on caches and read DNFs to determine whether they take action. What a job. What a waste of time, too, sorting out DNF logs that have absolutely nothing to do with the state of the cache.

Today I was reminded of a massively long DNF note on my cache that had zero mention of the cache itself except two words: not found.

 

I don’t think we need to worry. The reviewers have never said they find the CHS to be a hardship. They have said it’s a tool they use. It sounded to me that they were happy to have another way to help determine what needs attention. 

 

Update: I see that Keystone has responded that it isn’t a problem, and is an improvement. 

 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, niraD said:

The post I was referring to (in the message that you quoted) said:

 

 

I stand by my point. If what Max and 99 said is accurate, then the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed.

 

People should not have to change the way they log their geocaching activities to suit the CHS. The CHS should accommodate the way people actually log their geocaching activities. To the extent that it does not, the CHS is broken and needs to be fixed.

I responded with an example but I don't know if my post was deleted or it never got posted. I wish I knew!

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Keystone said:

We had to do that before CHS, too.

You had to do that? Then why, before the CHS was created, was it so rare in my area for a reviewer react to a cache until an NA was posted? Was my reviewer shirking his responsibility to jump on caches before anyone complained about them?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, dprovan said:

You had to do that? Then why, before the CHS was created, was it so rare in my area for a reviewer react to a cache until an NA was posted? Was my reviewer shirking his responsibility to jump on caches before anyone complained about them?

 

I certainly don't speak for Keystone,  but we noticed  he and another Reviewer in my state act on most of what the "chs" does,  years before it was created.

Keystone has been known to remove "missing" trackables from cache inventories before that algorithm too.      :)  

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2019 at 11:40 PM, Max and 99 said:

You and the CO may know the DNF with an explanation may not warrant a trip to check on the cache, but the CHS algorithm does not. And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

 

Then they should not ignore it.  There's a cache in Peoria, Illinois, that has about five finds and hundreds of DNFs.  It's still there, despite all of the DNFs.  If multiple DNFs mean automatic disabling of the cache, then some really hard ones would not still be in play.  Surely there is something the CO can do to make sure their cache does not get archived just from a couple of DNFs.

 

On 7/13/2019 at 2:06 PM, dprovan said:

I wonder how many future finders will actually READ your DNF as opposed to seeing there's a DNF and deciding to pass on visiting the cache. 

 

Probably some.  That's their choice.  We all know that some people simply cannot find caches that are there.  I found one the other day with a string of recent DNFs since the last find.  It couldn't be found recently by a handful of newer players, but was easy for me.  This happens all the time.  Are you saying that nobody should ever post a DNF, on the chance that other players who don't look at the logs might ignore it because they didn't realize that a bunch of newbies didn't know that you can lift up a lamp skirt? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ageleni said:

There's a cache in Peoria, Illinois, that has about five finds and hundreds of DNFs.  It's still there, despite all of the DNFs.  If multiple DNFs mean automatic disabling of the cache, then some really hard ones would not still be in play. 

 

This is probably algorithm 101,  but D/T is calculated, why "harder ones" aren't disabled.  :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2019 at 9:40 PM, Max and 99 said:

And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

Wait... I thought Groundspeak was telling COs to ignore a CHS alert email when they think it's a false positive.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, niraD said:

Wait... I thought Groundspeak was telling COs to ignore a CHS alert email when they think it's a false positive.

In my area, the reviewer sometimes gets involved after a CHS alert. I cannot say if it's all the time or just when he/she thinks it's warranted, but I do know that ignoring a CHS warning CAN trigger action by the reviewer.

 

Greetings from your Community Volunteer Reviewer,

Geocaching HQ uses a calculation called Health Score which rates caches to identify those that might need attention from the cache owner. Emails are sent by Geocaching HQ to the cache owners of low scoring caches to encourage them to check on their caches. To learn more about the Health Score and what can affect your cache's Health Score, I recommend that you read this Help Center article (link).

Based upon its Health Score, this cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention. You should have received an email about this a few weeks ago.

I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email. Therefore, I am temporarily disabling this cache until you, the owner, can check on its status. After checking the cache and doing any necessary maintenance, you can click on the “enable listing” button on the top of the cache page to reactivate it. You do not have to contact me to do it for you. Also, please post an Owner Maintenance log after you have checked on your cache.

If your cache is actually there, you might consider raising the Difficulty rating on it, as it may be much harder to find than the Difficulty rating shown on your cache page.

Please be aware that if you do not take action to address the issue with your cache by (date), or at least post a note to your cache page that you intend to do so, it will be archived at the direction of Geocaching HQ.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ageleni said:

 

Then they should not ignore it.  There's a cache in Peoria, Illinois, that has about five finds and hundreds of DNFs.  It's still there, despite all of the DNFs.  If multiple DNFs mean automatic disabling of the cache, then some really hard ones would not still be in play.  Surely there is something the CO can do to make sure their cache does not get archived just from a couple of DNFs.

 

 

Probably some.  That's their choice.  We all know that some people simply cannot find caches that are there.  I found one the other day with a string of recent DNFs since the last find.  It couldn't be found recently by a handful of newer players, but was easy for me.  This happens all the time.  Are you saying that nobody should ever post a DNF, on the chance that other players who don't look at the logs might ignore it because they didn't realize that a bunch of newbies didn't know that you can lift up a lamp skirt? 

You misquoted dprovan. That was my quote. I most definitely am NOT saying you shouldn't post a DNF note. You SHOULD, when you've looked for the cache and can't find it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, niraD said:
On 7/12/2019 at 9:40 PM, Max and 99 said:

And COs can get their caches disabled by a reviewer if they ignore a CHS alert.  

Wait... I thought Groundspeak was telling COs to ignore a CHS alert email when they think it's a false positive.

Ah, my mistake. I remember now. Groundspeak was telling COs to post armchair OM logs. People in the forums where saying the "friendly reminder" emails were no big deal, because the CO could just ignore them (e.g., when it's obviously a false positive).

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/14/2019 at 10:11 AM, cerberus1 said:

I certainly don't speak for Keystone,  but we noticed  he and another Reviewer in my state act on most of what the "chs" does,  years before it was created.

Keystone has been known to remove "missing" trackables from cache inventories before that algorithm too.      :)  

I guess in my area before CHS, people would post NAs in a timely manner, 'cuz the reviewer rarely got involved before a cache was flagged with an NA. Since the reviewers started jumping in, no one posts NAs anymore, so the need for CHS was a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

19 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:
31 minutes ago, niraD said:

Wait... I thought Groundspeak was telling COs to ignore a CHS alert email when they think it's a false positive.

In my area, the reviewer sometimes gets involved after a CHS alert. I cannot say if it's all the time or just when he/she thinks it's warranted, but I do know that ignoring a CHS warning CAN trigger action by the reviewer.

I'm almost positive niraD was being sarcastic. Of course getting an alert implies a bad CHS, so the reviewer will soon take action. But everyone keeps saying that it can be ignored if it's a false positive even though that isn't really true.

 

I'm actually a little confused by this introductory sentence since the rest of your post clearly shows that the reviewer reacting specifically to a CHS alert. The reviewer's log you quote sure sounds as if they'll do this every single time. It seems odd you're using it to stress "sometimes" and "CAN" when that evidence seems to support "always" and "WILL".

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It seems odd you're using it to stress "sometimes" and "CAN" when that evidence seems to support "always" and "WILL".

I chose those words because I don't have evidence that it always happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm almost positive niraD was being sarcastic.

Nope. Just a brain fart. Sorry to disappoint you.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I chose those words because I don't have evidence that it always happens. 

Can you point out where in the log you quoted you see anything that suggests the reviewer isn't going to post exactly that note on any cache that gets a CHS alert but nothing happens for a week? Everything about the text implies that the log is part of an automatic process that's out of the reviewer's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, dprovan said:
3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I chose those words because I don't have evidence that it always happens. 

Can you point out where in the log you quoted you see anything that suggests the reviewer isn't going to post exactly that note on any cache that gets a CHS alert but nothing happens for a week? Everything about the text implies that the log is part of an automatic process that's out of the reviewer's hands.

 

The log is clearly a reviewer's boilerplate, but I'd think it's likely they'll at least look at the cache page to try to see what upset the CHS's applecart before posting it. I'd hope that if it was just a bunch of DNFs from a group that didn't want to get their shoes wet crossing the creek between themselves and the cache, the reviewer would let it pass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, niraD said:

Nope. Just a brain fart. Sorry to disappoint you.

That's a relief. Here I was thinking I'm the only person that has them.😆

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am thinking that responding to a CHS email has to be a lot less effort than sitting here following threads related to the topic for months on end.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, bflentje said:

I am thinking that responding to a CHS email has to be a lot less effort than sitting here following threads related to the topic for months on end.

It all depends on the cache.

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

It all depends on the cache.

 

Oh, did I forget the </sarcasm> tag? 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 11:15 AM, Max and 99 said:

In my area, the reviewer sometimes gets involved after a CHS alert. I cannot say if it's all the time or just when he/she thinks it's warranted, but I do know that ignoring a CHS warning CAN trigger action by the reviewer.

Interesting and news to me. I could have sworn that when the CHS was introduced, we were explicitly told that it wouldn't be used in this way and would only be used for sending the nudge emails, though the reviewers would be able to view the CHS of a cache as an additional data point if they were already dealing with a potentially-problematic cache. Was that not the case, or has its use just been expanded since then? Are reviewers actively seeking out un-OMed CHS warnings, or just using the CHS as an additional data point during the normal maintenance sweeps (e.g. cache with NM, check CHS, etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The A-Team said:

Interesting and news to me. I could have sworn that when the CHS was introduced, we were explicitly told that it wouldn't be used in this way and would only be used for sending the nudge emails, though the reviewers would be able to view the CHS of a cache as an additional data point if they were already dealing with a potentially-problematic cache. Was that not the case, or has its use just been expanded since then? Are reviewers actively seeking out un-OMed CHS warnings, or just using the CHS as an additional data point during the normal maintenance sweeps (e.g. cache with NM, check CHS, etc.)?

 

At the Meet the Reviewers session at the mega I attended last year, the reviewer here said that even if you knew a CHS ping was a false positive you still have to log an OM otherwise the cache will keep being flagged to them as needing attention. I've since seen several instances of the reviewer disabling caches after just a few DNFs (no NMs or NAs involved).

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2019 at 3:59 AM, narcissa said:

I don't place much value on other people's DNF logs unless they are geocachers I trust to be thorough. In most instances, I will look for myself.

 

I try to do this.  But a string of DNFs definitely has an impact on how much time I put into a search if I start running out of patience.

 

(Long time no see in the forums, by the way.  Hope all is well.)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×