Jump to content

Programming flaw


Rustynails

Recommended Posts

A couple weeks ago I received groudspeak's HQ automated computer generated email on my 5-5 hide. The one that states your cache may need help. Apparently there's a flaw in the programming that it does not consider D.T. and experience of the hider. Never ever trust a computer.

 

Groundspeak please fix so the unneeded emails stop.  

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

It doesn't look like a bug to me. I don't like it, but the official dogma is that lots of DNFs equal "it's missing", and while D/T might be considered a factor, the cache I think you're talking about has never been found despite many attempts, so it's exactly the kind of cache that GS thinks shouldn't be tolerate. In other words, it's not a bug, it's a feature, just a dumb feature.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
45 minutes ago, rustynails. said:

A couple weeks ago I received groudspeak's HQ automated computer generated email on my 5-5 hide. The one that states your cache may need help. Apparently there's a flaw in the programming that it does not consider D.T. and experience of the hider. Never ever trust a computer.

 

Groundspeak please fix so the unneeded emails stop.  

That notice does not surprise me at all. 

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, dprovan said:

It doesn't look like a bug to me. I don't like it, but the official dogma is that lots of DNFs equal "it's missing", and while D/T might be considered a factor, the cache I think you're talking about has never been found despite many attempts, so it's exactly the kind of cache that GS thinks shouldn't be tolerate. In other words, it's not a bug, it's a feature, just a dumb feature.

 

GS should understand not everyone likes P&Gs. Many enjoy the challenge of a tough hide like this one. Variety is the spice of life.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

The algorithm does take into account D/T ratings (but not "experience of the hider" which is subjective).

 

Working against that in this case is the fact that your cache has never been found.

 

If there are lots of DNF's or if your cache hasn't been found for a long time, a physical check followed an owner maintenance log saying everything's fine is likely to increase visits - and even finds.  If I know the cache is there because the owner just checked on it, I will be more persistent in my search.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 5
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The algorithm does take into account D/T ratings (but not "experience of the hider" which is subjective).

In theory, it could take into account the owner's track record by analyzing the owner's other hides. Especially for a newly hidden 5/5 cache that only has a couple months of its own track record.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Working against that in this case is the fact that your cache has never been found.

 

 

The cache is only a smidgen over two months old. Is a 5/5 traditional not being found in that time such a sin? I'd have thought a difficulty 5 traditional ought to be allowed an unlimited number of DNFs since the CO can hardly follow the CHS's recommendation to increase the D-rating. Or are you now required to make it easier?

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The cache is only a smidgen over two months old. Is a 5/5 traditional not being found in that time such a sin? I'd have thought a difficulty 5 traditional ought to be allowed an unlimited number of DNFs since the CO can hardly follow the CHS's recommendation to increase the D-rating. Or are you now required to make it easier?

The obvious downside of that solution is that people that want to escape the dreaded email will merely rate all their Listings as a 5/5 regardless of the facts or reality.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

And, especially in the case of it not being that much of an effort to check on, why not pay it a visit once every couple of months? As mentioned, an OM log on a 2 month old 5/5 with lots of DNFs would absolutely be an assurance that the cache is indeed still findable and likely keep interest and excitement up.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And, especially in the case of it not being that much of an effort to check on, why not pay it a visit once every couple of months? As mentioned, an OM log on a 2 month old 5/5 with lots of DNFs would absolutely be an assurance that the cache is indeed still findable and likely keep interest and excitement up.

 

From the description and attributes it doesn't sound like access is all that easy:

 

Quote

Use extra caution and care in your search. This is a tricky and difficult terrain. Watch your footing as it's uneven and slippery. As with all geocaching hides you assume all liability and risk to injury.

 

I have a T5 water-access cache that I'm only willing to visit on a weekday outside school holidays when there's little wind and the tides are favourable, and some of my other higher terrain caches I wouldn't want to visit during the hotter months, particularly at the moment with the extreme risk of fire. One of those has only had five finds in three years. If I had to check on those every couple of months I'd just archive them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

In some rare cases (I know of one, possibly two), a cache might have a long string of DNFs because the cache doesn't even exit. No has found it because there is no cache there. (I am not claiming this is the case here.) So it gives some reassurance if the CO goes and checks on the cache regularly and posts it is okay.

Not of course that necessarily guarantees anything. In the case I know of the CO made claims (almost certainly from their armchair) they had checked the cache and it was still there. They archived it when the reviewer came in and asked for a photograph of the cache in situ.

I had to smile when it appeared someone might have made a throw down and the CO got 'upset' about this :laughing:. After all, they knew there shouldn't be a cache there.

 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And, especially in the case of it not being that much of an effort to check on, why not pay it a visit once every couple of months? As mentioned, an OM log on a 2 month old 5/5 with lots of DNFs would absolutely be an assurance that the cache is indeed still findable and likely keep interest and excitement up.

Sure, that would be nice. But that isn't the issue.

 

The issue is whether the system should automatically flag such a 5/5 cache if the owner hasn't posted such an OM log, and whether Groundspeak should have the volunteer reviewers preemptively disable such flagged caches.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, rustynails. said:

GS should understand not everyone likes P&Gs. Many enjoy the challenge of a tough hide like this one. Variety is the spice of life.

First, it sounds like you're conceding that this is an intentional decision by GS, not a "programming flaw", and that was my main point.

 

Second, I don't think this can really be thrown at GS's feeling about difficult caches. I don't think GS should be routinely sticking their noses into caches with no NAs posted, but we've lost that battle. So given that GS feels that they need to proactively react to caches based on DNFs alone, this seems like a valid cache to react to, even taking the ratings into account. I don't like it, but not because of this particular cache. At best, this is a good example of why GS shouldn't be policing caches unilaterally, but I wouldn't feel much different if it were a d1/t1 cache.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And, especially in the case of it not being that much of an effort to check on, why not pay it a visit once every couple of months? As mentioned, an OM log on a 2 month old 5/5 with lots of DNFs would absolutely be an assurance that the cache is indeed still findable and likely keep interest and excitement up.

 

If you read my logs, I would have checked if I felt there was a problem . The hide is 99.9% muggle proof. There's other reasons I will not get into. When I did check it yesterday it was in fine shape and exactly how I originally placed it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

First and foremost, thanks for actually checking your cache - like a responsible cache owner, something that's getting rarer.

 

Remember that the algorithm just looks at logs, dates, D/T ratings and other easily quantifiable data points to arrive at a score.  It cannot take into account the content of your logs (or anyone else's).  If your cache was rated 1/1, the notice would have come much sooner.  If there'd been a find in the middle of all the DNF's, the notice would have come much later (if at all).

 

For every false positive like this one, there are probably as many false negatives - the cache is missing, but someone logged a smiley with obvious DNF text like "couldn't find it," so no cache health email is sent out.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Keystone said:

First and foremost, thanks for actually checking your cache - like a responsible cache owner, something that's getting rarer.

 

Remember that the algorithm just looks at logs, dates, D/T ratings and other easily quantifiable data points to arrive at a score.  It cannot take into account the content of your logs (or anyone else's).  If your cache was rated 1/1, the notice would have come much sooner.  If there'd been a find in the middle of all the DNF's, the notice would have come much later (if at all).

 

For every false positive like this one, there are probably as many false negatives - the cache is missing, but someone logged a smiley with obvious DNF text like "couldn't find it," so no cache health email is sent out.

Is it true that NMs are not considered in the algorithm? If this is the case I find this very strange, as a NM should have more weight than a DNF; be worth two or more DNFs. I have seen caches with a string of NMs and nothing ever happens.

Link to comment
24 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Is it true that NMs are not considered in the algorithm? If this is the case I find this very strange, as a NM should have more weight than a DNF; be worth two or more DNFs. I have seen caches with a string of NMs and nothing ever happens.

 

My guess is there's more to this story than the CHS score. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Keystone said:

For an overview of the factors that impact a geocache's Health Score, see this Help Center article.

Thanks. So NMs are included. Seems strange then when caches get several NMs and no action appear to occur over many months. Maybe the CO was sent an email, but they have not done anything to respond to it, unless a private message was sent to the reviewer. That wouldn't assist the people searching though, as they wouldn't be privy to that.

The Help Centre doesn't give the information of what score is given to each and how this varies with the D/T. That would be interesting to know.

Link to comment

Went looking for a cache today.  Well, I was in the neighborhood.  I wouldn't have gone for this one otherwise.  A middle school science teacher had her class set out a series of caches with ecological agenda.  I'm surprised that this series was permitted.  All have ecological agenda.  Rather long cache pages about such things as recycling, urban pollution, and similar themes.  The caches were hidden in 2014.  Most of the COs have no finds and one hide.  And have not been active since 2014.  This cache has Needs Maintenance logs from 2016 and 2017 saying that the cache is broken.  The cache I found was broken and filled with dirt.  No log.  I put Needs Archive on it.  Should have been done years ago.  Got an e-mail from the COs parents saying the CO was in college, and they'd check on it by the end of the month.  Should have been checked on three years ago!  

I have no idea why this series was permitted in the first place.  

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Went looking for a cache today.  Well, I was in the neighborhood.  I wouldn't have gone for this one otherwise.  A middle school science teacher had her class set out a series of caches with ecological agenda.  I'm surprised that this series was permitted.  All have ecological agenda.  Rather long cache pages about such things as recycling, urban pollution, and similar themes.  The caches were hidden in 2014.  Most of the COs have no finds and one hide.  And have not been active since 2014.  This cache has Needs Maintenance logs from 2016 and 2017 saying that the cache is broken.  The cache I found was broken and filled with dirt.  No log.  I put Needs Archive on it.  Should have been done years ago.  Got an e-mail from the COs parents saying the CO was in college, and they'd check on it by the end of the month.  Should have been checked on three years ago!  

I have no idea why this series was permitted in the first place.  

My guess is that the 2 NM's and 2 DNF's in the time this cache has been active did very little to nudge the CHS against an ocean of Finds on that Listing.  That one appears to be squarely on the Community IMO, for allowing it to continue without reporting it..  Kind of ironic that the Title of the cache also describes the state of the container.

 

Thanks for taking the time to post the NA.  Looks like the local Reviewer has already taken some action.

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

A middle school science teacher had her class set out a series of caches with ecological agenda.  I'm surprised that this series was permitted.

I see lots of caches by beginners allowed, even if they have no finds, and they haven't shown any commitment to geocaching, except for the 'five minutes' they thought it would be fun to try. These caches don't sound different than that. These caches, with a few exceptions, are often crap and commonly with wrong coordinates. After all they don't know what a good cache looks like, as they haven't found any, and have no experience with coordinates, unless they are the rare individual who uses coordinates in their job.

 

1 hour ago, Harry Dolphin said:

All have ecological agenda.  Rather long cache pages about such things as recycling, urban pollution, and similar themes.

Nothing wrong with that, except by the sounds of it,  maybe the length of the writing.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Is it true that NMs are not considered in the algorithm? If this is the case I find this very strange, as a NM should have more weight than a DNF; be worth two or more DNFs. I have seen caches with a string of NMs and nothing ever happens.

 

An NM ought to be worth a lot more than two DNFs. Most DNFs (probably upwards of ninety percent) don't mean there's anything wrong with the cache, they just mean the searcher couldn't find it for whatever reason, whereas an NM is a direct call for the CO to take some action.

 

The problem seems to be that, for NMs that aren't for a missing cache, subsequent finds apparently cancel out that NM in the eyes of the CHS, even though the problem that triggered the NM (maybe a cracked container or whatever) hasn't been addressed.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

An NM ought to be worth a lot more than two DNFs.

You have to take into account that this whole CHS mechanism is in place because NMs and NAs aren't being posted. When I consider that, it makes sense that the algorithm wouldn't be that interested in NMs since it isn't actually expecting to find many of them. The premise GS is working on is that seekers aren't capable of reporting problems, so the information can only be gleaned based on reports of not finding the cache.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 11/17/2019 at 2:09 AM, niraD said:

The issue is whether the system should automatically flag such a 5/5 cache if the owner hasn't posted such an OM log, and whether Groundspeak should have the volunteer reviewers preemptively disable such flagged caches.

Aaaaand we're back to the CHS debate...

 

On 11/17/2019 at 8:07 AM, rustynails. said:

If you read my logs, I would have checked if I felt there was a problem . The hide is 99.9% muggle proof. There's other reasons I will not get into. When I did check it yesterday it was in fine shape and exactly how I originally placed it.

It's great that you checked it, really it is. So if you've already been there, why not post that as a log (OM)? That would dissuade the system from assuming that you're inactive, as well possible reviewers. AND give assurance to the public who might be becoming doubtful of the cache findability.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Aaaaand we're back to the CHS debate...

 

This thread has been part of the CHS debate from the beginning:

On 11/16/2019 at 5:22 PM, rustynails. said:

A couple weeks ago I received groudspeak's HQ automated computer generated email on my 5-5 hide.

 

Link to comment

True enough. I should have been more specific to the point about whether reviewers pre-emptively disabling caches due to the CHS was a productive discussion point given this has been talked about ad nauseum in other threads (as opposed to whether this particular cache should have received the CHS nudge).  Point being, the discussion is doing a roundabout back to the big'ol CHS debate thread.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's great that you checked it, really it is. So if you've already been there, why not post that as a log (OM)?

 

Just noticed that rustynail's took your advice and posted an OM (dated the 16th).  thumbs-up.jpg.4249a5491533442834587681a3a0196c.jpg

Edited by L0ne.R
Typo
Link to comment
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

It's great that you checked it, really it is. So if you've already been there, why not post that as a log (OM)? That would dissuade the system from assuming that you're inactive, as well possible reviewers. AND give assurance to the public who might be becoming doubtful of the cache findability.

 

The cache is only two months old, so why would the system or the reviewers assume the CO is inactive? They were certainly active (very active it seems if it really is a terrain 5) two months ago when they hid it.

 

Pinging a D5 cache with a dozen DNFs after it's been out there for a few years, especially if it's been years since the last find or OM log, might be reasonable, but two months?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Pinging a D5 cache with a dozen DNFs after it's been out there for a few years, especially if it's been years since the last find or OM log, might be reasonable, but two months?

 

Agreed. Two months seems far too soon to be sending out a CHS warning, especially given the D/T.

 

We've been under the impression that the CHS is some kind of complicated algorithm, but more and more I'm starting to suspect that it's a fairly simple and unsophisticated query which isn't adequately accounting for variables in the way it should be.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, The A-Team said:

 

Agreed. Two months seems far too soon to be sending out a CHS warning, especially given the D/T.

 

We've been under the impression that the CHS is some kind of complicated algorithm, but more and more I'm starting to suspect that it's a fairly simple and unsophisticated query which isn't adequately accounting for variables in the way it should be.

 

Actually it has been active only 1 month and a few days. Published 10-10-19 and GC auto email received  11-2-19. The hide was active less than a month before they hit me with the email.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, rustynails. said:

Actually it has been active only 1 month and a few days. Published 10-10-19 and GC auto email received  11-2-19. The hide was active less than a month before they hit me with the email.

For a brand-new cache owner, whose first hide is a 1.5/1.5 P&G, nagging the CO with a "friendly email" after a few weeks might make sense.

 

For an experienced CO with hundreds of hides, who hid a 5/5 hide, not so much.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, The A-Team said:
17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Pinging a D5 cache with a dozen DNFs after it's been out there for a few years, especially if it's been years since the last find or OM log, might be reasonable, but two months?

 

Agreed. Two months seems far too soon to be sending out a CHS warning, especially given the D/T.

 

To which we fall back on... ignore it if you don't want to do anything in response. Even writing a note on the listing. A note won't affect the CHS (we think) but it will affect other geocachers and a reviewer if they decide to look at the cache.

Honestly I don't see ANY excuse for a CO to blatantly do absolutely nothing when a CHS email is received ("but what if a CO doesn't get the email because they're awol for 2 months" yeah that's already been discussed as well - make plans beforehand; "but what if it's unexpected?"  okay how remote a possibility of anything MUST the system accommodate before realizing that humans make all the final decisions here?).  If anything the ping could be seen as a test to see if the CO is responsive. Doing something may not affect the CHS score, but it will be a visible indication that "hey I'm here!"  So big woop, post a note: "Looks like lots of activity! If it's still unfound in a month [or arbitrary period] I'll re-check it."  Done.  IF a reviewer steps in to demand quicker action, deal with that when the time comes.

 

Yes, it would be nice if the CHS wasn't pinged so early in some cases and if it could read and understand log content. But it can't. HQ likely doesn't have the funds to build an AI that reads and understands logs and listings like humans. But they can tweak the algorithm, and they also have to set parameters as a compromise between caches or cache owners that actually are that bad, and those that are false positives.

 

It's a growing pet peeve of mine when people complain of receiving a CHS email nudge as if the sky is falling and it's a personal insult to their cache ownership ability or core of who they are. Inform people, educate people, let them know. It's not. And it's not a simple fix.

 

ETA: Seriously, if I got a nudge on a 5/5 of mine after a month unfound and a bunch of DNFs, why on earth would I think that a bad thing? I'd probably ignore it, I might drop a Note on the listing. I might do a physical checkup. It all depends on the content of the logs that have been posted to date. The last thing I'd do is go to the forum complaining that HQ is insulting me as a cache owner because the system thinks the cache is in bad shape. =/

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

To which we fall back on... ignore it if you don't want to do anything in response. Even writing a note on the listing. A note won't affect the CHS (we think) but it will affect other geocachers and a reviewer if they decide to look at the cache.

 

Sorry, but ignoring it or even writing a note saying you think it's okay but will check in due course isn't sufficient to prevent a reviewer disable, and indeed one of the reviewers said at last year's mega that the CO must log an OM to clear a CHS ping. The reviewer disable log on the cache being discussed here said:

 

Quote

This cache or cache page appears to be in need of some maintenance by the owner. I'm temporarily disabling it, to give the owner an opportunity to check on the cache, and take whatever action is necessary.

Please respond to this situation by posting a note to the cache page with your plan, maintaining the cache and enabling it, or archiving this listing in a timely manner. Please do not post a "Owner Maintenance" log until you have maintained your cache.

Archive, Enable, Owner Maintenance and Update Coordinates are all log types available to cache owners.

If you plan on repairing this cache, please log a note to the cache (not email) within the next 30 days so I don't archive the listing for non-communication.

 

Note the requirement to "check on the cache" and to "not post an Owner Maintenance log until you have maintained the cache". None of this implies that you can just ignore it if you don't think there's a problem. In the example I quoted a year ago, even a WN from the CO saying he was pretty sure the cache was okay but would check on it soon wasn't enough to prevent a reviewer disable (and when the CO did eventually check the cache was fine).

 

For an urban LPC or whatever, maybe it's no big deal for the CO to immediately go and check on the cache, but there are plenty of caches where doing such a check is a major and potentially hazardous undertaking for the CO. The cache I did for my 1000th find is a three hour hike each way through rugged terrain and I certainly wouldn't want to be its CO if it got a false-positive CHS email. With fires currently raging across much of eastern Australia, visiting any bushland cache right now would be perilous, and if I were to get a CHS email on any of my hides this summer, archival might be the only option even if I'm 99% sure the cache is fine.

 

The CHS email itself is quite clear in the options it gives the CO and the reviewers now appear to be enforcing those options. Either visit and repair the cache immediately then log an OM, disable the cache until you can, or archive it. Ignoring it, or posting a note saying you'll check on it sometime when it suits, isn't an acceptable option anymore (if it ever was). None of these actions are likely to be palatable to the owner of a difficult-to-access cache, especially when it happens just a month after the cache was hidden and it was a D5 hide that was meant to be difficult to spot and so was meant to get lots of DNFs. The CHS is broken if it's going after such caches, which is why they need to be raised in the forums so that just maybe it might be fixed.

 

 

 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Note the requirement to "check on the cache" and to "not post an Owner Maintenance log until you have maintained the cache". None of this implies that you can just ignore it if you don't think there's a problem.

 

You do realize the instruction you just quoted is what I said:

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Please respond to this situation by posting a note to the cache page with your plan, maintaining the cache and enabling it, or archiving this listing in a timely manner.

 

If the reviewer ignored that response (a note posted to the listing by the owner), then that's the reviewer's JUDGMENT. This is not a problem with the CHS. This is a problem between the cache owner and the reviewer.  Ignoring the CHS and doing nothing is not smart, but a lack of response itself does nothing. BUT it can lead people to believe the cache owner is non-responsive, and can lead a reviewer to judge that additional action IS necessary. I stand by my point.

 

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The CHS email itself is quite clear in the options it gives the CO and the reviewers now appear to be enforcing those options.

 

This has already been heavily discussed. And I still stand by the point - it's a reviewer judgment at that point. If some reviewers ARE enforcing them, that is an individual judgment for whatever region to which the reviewer belongs. The CHS is not the cause of the reviewer action. The reviewer is not required to take action merely because there has not been a response to a CHS ping. But they can judge for themselves that the cache owner appears to be non-responsive.  I stand by my point.

 

10 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

None of these actions are likely to be palatable to the owner of a difficult-to-access cache, especially when it happens just a month after the cache was hidden and it was a D5 hide that was meant to be difficult to spot and so was meant to get lots of DNFs. The CHS is broken if it's going after such caches, which is why they need to be raised in the forums so that just maybe it might be fixed

 

This is NOT a matter of the CHS, this is a matter of the cache owner being reasonable and respectful with their reviewer to convince them of whatever plan is in place to indicate, verify, or imply, that the cache IS findable (even if it's as little as posting a note).  The CHS ping is something a reviewer sees. A reviewer can look at the listing and make a judgment call as to whether the listing needs a followup by the CO - whom they can also 'test' to find out if they are responsive. The CHS does not do this. A human being does. I stand by my point.

Ignoring a CHS email IS an option. It is a risk, lest a reviewer come to a belief that you are non-responsive, and thus take action on the cache listing, unless they can be convinced that all is well, OR you have a maintenance plan in place. As per the quote included above. I stand by my point.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Ignoring a CHS email IS an option. It is a risk, lest a reviewer come to a belief that you are non-responsive, and thus take action on the cache listing, unless they can be convinced that all is well, OR you have a maintenance plan in place. As per the quote included above. I stand by my point.

 

The reviewers here have said that you must respond to a CHS email with an OM log and it appears those that don't get their caches disabled by the reviewer as a matter of course. Try then ignoring a reviewer TD and see what happens.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

The reviewers here have said that you must respond to a CHS email with an OM log and it appears those that don't get their caches disabled by the reviewer as a matter of course. Try then ignoring a reviewer TD and see what happens.

Then the reviewers have not been convinced of the maintenance plan. I don't blame the CHS. Without being able to judge the individual situations, the issue lies between the cache owner and reviewer. If the owner is being unreasonable, the reviewers are within their rights. If the reviewer is being unreasonable, HQ appeals exists to deal with it.

 

ETA: Except that "must respond to a CHS email with an OM log" is not in line with the quote you provided above. And if that is a legitimate inconsistency, it's absolutely an issue of reviewer practice, not a broken CHS.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

Then the reviewers have not been convinced of the maintenance plan. I don't blame the CHS. Without being able to judge the individual situations, the issue lies between the cache owner and reviewer. If the owner is being unreasonable, the reviewers are within their rights. If the reviewer is being unreasonable, HQ appeals exists to deal with it.

 

ETA: Except that "must respond to a CHS email with an OM log" is not in line with the quote you provided above.

 

What I quoted above was from the Reviewer Disable log. It's what the CO must do AFTER the reviewer has disabled their cache. The only way to prevent a Reviewer Disable log in the first place is to visit the cache and log an OM before it's flagged to them as needing follow-up.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I stand corrected. Nonetheless, if your reviewers are requiring a practical action (ie a physical checkup) on a CHS nudge, it's still a matter between the cache owner and the reviewer.  It's not a universal requirement, in practice, worldwide. It is still a human reviewer that makes a judgment call before taking action. If reviewers are being unreasonable (ie in the rare case of a non-trivial cache to maintain), that is an issue to take up between the reviewer and appeals.

Additionally, I stand by the point that ignoring the CHS nudge is an option - but it accepts the risk of being perceived as non-responsive.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

And I stand by my assertion that the CHS should not be pinging D5 caches with only some DNF logs (i.e. no NM or NA logs) that are only a month or two old. That is the bug that I think needs to be fixed. Actually it should be pinging D5 traditionals that don't initially get lots of DNFs because that probably means the D rating is wrong or the cache's camo has been compromised.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Maybe the time has come to just turn off the emails going out, since that seems to be where the majority of this annoyance is coming from. Then the CHS becomes just another tool, like GSAK and similar functionality on PGC, which is freely available to the Community, and those that are interested, can check the “health score” of their Listings. Then it goes back to the way it was: a conversation between the CO and the local Reviewer. 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

Maybe the time has come to just turn off the emails going out, since that seems to be where the majority of this annoyance is coming from. Then the CHS becomes just another tool, like GSAK and similar functionality on PGC, which is freely available to the Community, and those that are interested, can check the “health score” of their Listings.

An interesting idea. Do you really think there's any chance GS will turn back on this new approach of proactive reviewer policing?

 

1 hour ago, Touchstone said:

Then it goes back to the way it was: a conversation between the CO and the local Reviewer. 

I'd rather it went back to the way it was: a conversation between the CO and the seekers with the reviewer only getting involved when necessary.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'd rather it went back to the way it was: a conversation between the CO and the seekers with the reviewer only getting involved when necessary.

 

I don't know how it works in other areas, but around here there's usually a lot of chit-chat between COs and seekers of new hard-to-find caches, be they difficult terrain, difficult camo or difficult puzzles. Some of this is in the various FB groups here or it might be private messages between cachers, but none of this is visible to the CHS and most isn't visible to reviewers unless they are part of those groups. We're a friendly community and any real problems on new caches are generally resolved without having to involve reviewers or HQ.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 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...