Geocaching admin temporarily disabling caches

[+thebruce0]

Oh I agree. Let me adjust that double negative: "Unless of course you believe on principle that reviewers should never act unless requested to do so by community, and I don't agree with that, on principle." [ie, I think reviewers have every right to act autonomously, not only in response to community nudge, according to guidelines and their judgment, which should be in line with Groundspeak's guidelines and intended geocaching ethics]

 

So, yes. Despite the occasional disagreement, I like our reviewers, and I believe they model excellent PTB at least for our region, given its community dynamic = P

[+FiveEyes]

In this case, it so happened that all the geocaches which this reviewer temporarily disabled, actually DID end up needing maintenance.  But I've also had other geocaches temporarily disabled by a reviewer after 2 DNFs, which did NOT need maintenance, and were there in the original spot in perfect condition.  I don't tend to do difficult hides because I don't want to ask people to make the effort to hike out to a spot only to be unable to find the cache.  However, even with a good hint, some cachers have not found my geocaches.  

Because I like hiking geocaches, mine mostly take more than a couple hours of time to check on, could take half a day to check on. For this reason, I am now inclined to make my geocaches even easier to find.  I am not keen on reducing what little challenge there already is, but I also dont' want to continue to be called out to spend half a day checking on a geocache that is in fine condition because some people weren't able to find it.  

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, FiveEyes said:

Because I like hiking geocaches, mine mostly take more than a couple hours of time to check on, could take half a day to check on. For this reason, I am now inclined to make my geocaches even easier to find.  I am not keen on reducing what little challenge there already is, but I also dont' want to continue to be called out to spend half a day checking on a geocache that is in fine condition because some people weren't able to find it. 

 

I'm in a similar position, with many of my caches a considerable hike from the nearest road or railway station. I generally do a routine check on the more remote ones during the winter, but these would be challenging to get to in the heat of summer or if there's a spell of stormy weather. Even windy weather's not a good idea for hiking as our eucalypt trees like dropping substantial branches on people's heads without notice. And of course this summer it's particularly difficult with many areas either fire-affected or closed because of the fire risk.

 

Those more challenging caches also sometimes get DNFs from people who didn't even make it to GZ, because the weather closed in, they ran out of daylight, the terrain was too tough or even if they encountered a snake on the track. The CHS ping I got a few years back left me in a situation where I couldn't do any of the things the email asked me to do - I couldn't make an immediate visit to the T5 multi due to the holiday season and all the power craft on the waterway, but the person who logged the DNF because of muggles near GZ wanted to have another try so she asked me not to disable or archive it. Luckily she found it a week later, which must have pushed the cache's health score back above the threshold as there was no reviewer intervention, but it's something that's now in the back of my mind whenever I contemplate new hides and it makes me think twice about anything that might be too challenging to get to at short notice, particularly if it requires water access or is substantially off-track. The simplest solution should that arise again might be just to archive the listing, go out and collect the cache when conditions are favourable and reuse it in a P&G.

[+Goldenwattle]

22 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Those more challenging caches also sometimes get DNFs from people who didn't even make it to GZ, because the weather closed in, they ran out of daylight, the terrain was too tough or even if they encountered a snake on the track.

If that were the situation and their logs stated that, eg turned back because of snake, but the cache was pinged and you got a message the cache needs checking, I would do an OM and say the cache is remote and the last visitors to the cache found the cache. They did not find it missing. Then mention the resent DNFs and say they never got to the cache, so the DNF does not indicate the cache is missing. Add, last visitors found it okay and the cache and log were in very good condition on last regular CO check, with still lots of room in the log.

It would be a very mean Reviewer who came back after that. As long as the CO writing this has a good record of maintaining their caches.

[+barefootjeff]

27 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If that were the situation and their logs stated that, eg turned back because of snake, but the cache was pinged and you got a message the cache needs checking, I would do an OM and say the cache is remote and the last visitors to the cache found the cache. They did not find it missing. Then mention the resent DNFs and say they never got to the cache, so the DNF does not indicate the cache is missing. Add, last visitors found it okay and the cache and log were in very good condition on last regular CO check, with still lots of room in the log.

It would be a very mean Reviewer who came back after that. As long as the CO writing this has a good record of maintaining their caches.

 

About a year ago I reported on a similar scenario unfolding in northern Sydney, on a difficult (D3) traditional that gets a fair number of DNFs. There was a bunch of DNFs just before Christmas from three or four inexperienced searchers, with a "might be missing" NM by one of them as well, to which the CO responded with a note saying he was pretty sure from past history and the nature of the hide that it was okay but he'd check when next in the area. That wasn't enough to appease the reviewer, though, as two weeks later he disabled it with the boiler-plate log saying "The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. 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 in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness." The CO did go and check within the allowed time and, as he suspected, the cache was fine.

 

My understanding is that you're supposed to actually visit the cache and check it personally before logging an OM to clear an NM or CHS ping. Isn't there another thread about the evils of armchair OMs?

[+Goldenwattle]

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

About a year ago I reported on a similar scenario unfolding in northern Sydney, on a difficult (D3) traditional that gets a fair number of DNFs. There was a bunch of DNFs just before Christmas from three or four inexperienced searchers, with a "might be missing" NM by one of them as well, to which the CO responded with a note saying he was pretty sure from past history and the nature of the hide that it was okay but he'd check when next in the area. That wasn't enough to appease the reviewer, though, as two weeks later he disabled it with the boiler-plate log saying "The cache appears to be in need of owner intervention. 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 in a timely manner (i.e., within 28 days) to prevent the cache from being archived for non-responsiveness." The CO did go and check within the allowed time and, as he suspected, the cache was fine.

 

My understanding is that you're supposed to actually visit the cache and check it personally before logging an OM to clear an NM or CHS ping. Isn't there another thread about the evils of armchair OMs?

If the CO has a good record and the previous loggers mentioned that they never got to the cache (turned back bad weather/ snake blocking path, so chickened out/etc) as I wrote, I can only repeat, " It would be a very mean Reviewer who came back after that. As long as the CO writing this has a good record of maintaining their caches. " A LOT different than an armchair logger who never (or rarely at best) checks their caches and don' have a good record.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

If the CO has a good record and the previous loggers mentioned that they never got to the cache (turned back bad weather/ snake blocking path, so chickened out/etc) as I wrote, I can only repeat, " It would be a very mean Reviewer who came back after that. As long as the CO writing this has a good record of maintaining their caches. " A LOT different than an armchair logger who never (or rarely at best) checks their caches and don' have a good record.

 

I guess I'll find out when the time comes, but as a matter of principle I won't log an OM unless I've actually had the cache in my hand and flicked through the logbook. I'm even reluctant to log an OM unless there was actually something amiss that needed maintaining, lest it be misinterpreted as "that cache must be poor because it's always getting maintenance". Often when I visit one of my caches I'm the first to have done so since my last visit.

 

There's a popular camping ground at Patonga so each summer my caches there get worked over by out-of-town visitors and there's usually a few DNFs amongst the logs. A lot of them have D/T grids with only the top left corner filled in so are probably unused to bushland hides and what to expect from my cunning devilry. I have the opposite problem when I visit urban areas and am something of a Blind Freddy when it comes to disguised micros. Some of my holidays have ended with more DNFs than finds. Anyway, I'm sure some of those Patonga caches must have sailed close to getting a CHS ping or a TD from the reviewer in summers past (this summer they've been disabled most of the time due to park closures); luckily it's only a short drive over the hill to check on them. It's more my T4s and T5s that will be tough to get to in summer if anything arose, and with them getting very few finds now, archival and winter retrieval might be the simplest answer.

Edited January 13, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm even reluctant to log an OM unless there was actually something amiss that needed maintaining, lest it be misinterpreted as "that cache must be poor because it's always getting maintenance". Often when I visit one of my caches I'm the first to have done so since my last visit.

I do an OM if I visit a cache to show I am maintaining it. If you want to let it be known that you didn't visit because there was a problem, write something like, "Cache and log are still good with plenty of room still left in the log." I'm sure that OM logs like that would be seen as positive rather than as you wrote, "I'm even reluctant to log an OM unless there was actually something amiss that needed maintaining, lest it be misinterpreted". I don't think the reviewers are stupid; they can read there was nothing wrong with the cache.

[+barefootjeff]

51 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I do an OM if I visit a cache to show I am maintaining it. If you want to let it be known that you didn't visit because there was a problem, write something like, "Cache and log are still good with plenty of room still left in the log." I'm sure that OM logs like that would be seen as positive rather than as you wrote, "I'm even reluctant to log an OM unless there was actually something amiss that needed maintaining, lest it be misinterpreted". I don't think the reviewers are stupid; they can read there was nothing wrong with the cache.

 

Only one of my hides (GC4X42A) is ever likely to get a full logbook and even that won't happen for at least another two or three years at the current find rate. The rest, well, an almost-empty logbook is a given as they just don't get enough finds to fill even a nano scroll. I came to realise the futility of consecutive OM logs when, after the third in a row on this lonely multi, I saw that I was talking to myself and saying the same thing over and over again:

 

 

Maybe I should just put in the description that I check it after school holidays and clear away the leaf litter. That way, if someone has it in a PQ, they'll see something useful on their GPSr instead of my repetitions.

Edited January 13, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+dennistubaplayer]

Huh- I've never had this happen to me. I have had 4 DNF's in a course of 5 days (the cache was still there, I checked) and it wasn't disabled. I think this may vary with reviewers. I've found that The NY reviewer is usally reluctant to disable caches unless nessasary.

Edited November 27, 2020 by dennistubaplayer

[Keystone]

46 minutes ago, dennistubaplayer said:

Huh- I've never had this happen to me. I have had 3 Dnfs in a week (the cache was still there I checked) and it wasn't disabled. I think this may vary with admins. The NY admin is usally reluctant to disable caches unless nessasary.

 

The Cache Health Score has a delay factor built in; the score declines over time depending on a number of factors, including the prior logs and the difficulty rating of the cache.  Only when it reaches a defined threshold does the Health Score trigger a notification to the Cache Owner, and then later on to the Reviewer.

 

If you are reacting to DNF's by checking your cache and logging an "Owner Maintenance" prior to the point where the Cache Health Score hits the trigger level, then Bravo to you for being a good, responsible cache owner!  The Owner Maintenance log is what makes your Cache Health Score zoom back up to "grade A."

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Keystone said:

If you are reacting to DNF's by checking your cache and logging an "Owner Maintenance" prior to the point where the Cache Health Score hits the trigger level, then Bravo to you for being a good, responsible cache owner!  The Owner Maintenance log is what makes your Cache Health Score zoom back up to "grade A.

 

Just curious, do I really need to go and do a cache check and log an OM after this DNF I got last week?

 

Quote

Didn't find it

14/09/2020

This was to be a quick find. I found the words & did the X-word. However, found I was running out of time to catch the next train. Will save finding this cache for another day. TFTC

 

 

[+ecanderson]

@barefootjeff

Now that's the kind of situation where I'd have logged a "Write Note" since it was in large part a DNL (Did Not Look).

Where there is no proper opportunity to look for the container, and yet there is some comment worth leaving for history, a Write Note is often the better choice.  Not only more accurate, but keeps the health-o-meter at bay.  Too many people see logs as a binary choice.

 

 

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, ecanderson said:

@barefootjeff

Now that's the kind of situation where I'd have logged a "Write Note" since it was in large part a DNL (Did Not Look).

Where there is no proper opportunity to look for the container, and yet there is some comment worth leaving for history, a Write Note is often the better choice.  Not only more accurate, but keeps the health-o-meter at bay.  Too many people see logs as a binary choice.

 

 

However, in logging a DNF a blue frownie will show on the map, that the seeker has unfinished business. A prompt to return?

[+ecanderson]

An unfound cache icon is good enough for me.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, dennistubaplayer said:

Huh- I've never had this happen to me. I have had 3 Dnfs in a week (the cache was still there I checked) and it wasn't disabled. I think this may vary with admins. The NY admin is usally reluctant to disable caches unless nessasary.

After you checked and found the cache okay, did you do an owner maintenance log? If not, you should do one.

[Darwin473]

55 minutes ago, colleda said:

...a blue frownie will show on the map, that the seeker has unfinished business.

 

That's how I see them. I have (I think) about 3 that are most probably MIA so I'm not too concerned about those, but there's a few on my map which were found before and after I was there (some with "so easy" comments) which irk me no end. I have it on my to-do list to go and turn those frownies into smileys!

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, ecanderson said:

@barefootjeff

Now that's the kind of situation where I'd have logged a "Write Note" since it was in large part a DNL (Did Not Look).

Where there is no proper opportunity to look for the container, and yet there is some comment worth leaving for history, a Write Note is often the better choice.  Not only more accurate, but keeps the health-o-meter at bay.  Too many people see logs as a binary choice.

 

 

 

As I mentioned in the other thread, only about half the DNFs I get on my caches are from people who've searched thoroughly at GZ but couldn't find it. The rest had other reasons for their search being unsuccessful and I would hope that any DNF-counting automated tools would take that into account.

[Keystone]

The automated tool (a/k/a Cache Health Score) cannot differentiate between valid and invalid DNF logs based on content.  The algorithm doesn't analyze the words.  Rather, it serves to alert Cache Owners (and later, Reviewers) to a possible problem.  The automated tool is nice, but human involvement is still necessary.

[+barefootjeff]

42 minutes ago, Keystone said:

The automated tool (a/k/a Cache Health Score) cannot differentiate between valid and invalid DNF logs based on content.

 

This is the crux of the problem as I see it. Is it right to consider a DNF as invalid if it doesn't imply the cache might be missing? The Help Centre just says 'Use a “Didn’t Find It” (DNF) log when you look for a cache but do not find it' and many of the cachers around here, including me, take that to mean they were attempting to find the cache but didn't succeed for any reason. A lot of the time, the thing that gets in the way of a smiley happens before we start searching at GZ, particularly on the more involved caches but even a P&G search can be thwarted by a muggle sitting on top of it.

 

Maybe the Help Centre needs to be updated to say to only log a DNF if you think the cache might be missing, but wouldn't that then be duplicating the "cache might be missing" NM?

[+The Jester]

37 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe the Help Centre needs to be updated to say to only log a DNF if you think the cache might be missing, but wouldn't that then be duplicating the "cache might be missing" NM?

I'm strongly against any such change.  A DNF is a simple statement of fact:  I did not find this cache.  Using it to imply/indicate something more changes the simplicity of that log type.

[+dennistubaplayer]

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

After you checked and found the cache okay, did you do an owner maintenance log? If not, you should do one.

Yes I did. After 2 or more DNFs, I always check on my caches

 

[+coachstahly]

11 hours ago, Keystone said:

The automated tool (a/k/a Cache Health Score) cannot differentiate between valid and invalid DNF logs based on content.  The algorithm doesn't analyze the words.  Rather, it serves to alert Cache Owners (and later, Reviewers) to a possible problem.

 

A DNF can mean there's a possible problem but it can also mean that there's not a possible problem.  The CHS automatically scores the corresponding DNF log as the negative aspect, thereby conflating a DNF with a cache that might be missing and scoring it negatively in response.  I fully get that a reviewer will still need to get involved and am grateful for that.

 

10 hours ago, The Jester said:

A DNF is a simple statement of fact:  I did not find this cache.  Using it to imply/indicate something more changes the simplicity of that log type.

 

But that is exactly what the CHS does, counting a DNF as a "strike" against the overall health score of the cache because it determines (in the negative) that it might be missing, despite the fact that it might be just fine.  I get that it has to count as a negative.  Otherwise the CHS would rely solely on NM logs, which would somewhat defeat the purpose of a proactive program and revert it more to a reactive program.

[+The Jester]

1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

But that is exactly what the CHS does, counting a DNF as a "strike" against the overall health score of the cache because it determines (in the negative) that it might be missing, despite the fact that it might be just fine.  I get that it has to count as a negative.  Otherwise the CHS would rely solely on NM logs, which would somewhat defeat the purpose of a proactive program and revert it more to a reactive program.

I understand that, I was reacting to change in the Help Center.

[+DarkZen]

On 9/24/2020 at 8:55 PM, Keystone said:

The automated tool (a/k/a Cache Health Score) cannot differentiate between valid and invalid DNF logs based on content.  The algorithm doesn't analyze the words.  

 

It might be too much to ask of an algorithm to analyze words but not numbers.

 

I had a couple of caches fall victim to this recently which I feel was completely unwarranted. One was logged by to newbies with single digit finds. And were within a week or two of each other. I don't feel it's unreasonable to ask of the algorithm to weed out DNF's of members with 10 or less finds. Similarly, a pair of cachers hunting together, logging on the same day will technically register as 2 DNFs. 

 

One of the caches I got a note on was a puzzle! Surely two DNFs on a puzzle isn't that unusual. Maybe the algorithm could be configured to take puzzles into account.

[Keystone]

A puzzle ought to be reflected in the difficulty rating.  The algorithm doesn't know the difference between a cache rated Difficulty 4 because there's a complex math puzzle, and a cache rated Difficulty 4 because it's an evil micro that takes hours to locate at ground zero.  All other things being equal, a D1.5 traditional cache is going to receive a cache health score notification faster than a D4 puzzle cache.

[+GeoElmo6000]

11 hours ago, DarkZen said:

Surely two DNFs on a puzzle isn't that unusual. Maybe the algorithm could be configured to take puzzles into account.

 

A DNF on a puzzle that has some sort of coordinate checker is the same as a DNF on a traditional cache.  One doesn't log a DNF for not being able to solve a puzzle, only for not being able to find the cache.

 

If a puzzle doesn't have a coordinate checker that's a different story.  I always include some sort of coordinate checker, except in the one case where I included 10 possible solutions and one needed logic to determine the correct one.  A coordinate checker would have made finding the solution very easy.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

 cache on a train

A cache on a train???

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

A cache on a train???

I assumed a non-operating locomotive on display at a park of some sort.

[+NanCycle]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

I assumed a non-operating locomotive on display at a park of some sort.

Yeah, probably, just struck me that way.   btw, a locomotive is not a train; a caboose is not a train.  A locomotive plus a caboose can be a train.

[+ecanderson]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

One local checked on her cache after a CHS email and it only had one dnf.

GC code? 

[+ecanderson]

OK.  Got it.  To be fair, it gets its share of DNFs.  What I don't think the cache health-o-meter takes into account is the experience of the cachers logging the DNFs, and it looks like that has played into the numbers here.

For a 2.0, it seems to get its share.  For 2019-2020, 8 DNF and 6 Finds.

[+NanCycle]

48 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

OK.  Got it.  To be fair, it gets its share of DNFs.  What I don't think the cache health-o-meter takes into account is the experience of the cachers logging the DNFs, and it looks like that has played into the numbers here.

For a 2.0, it seems to get its share.  For 2019-2020, 8 DNF and 6 Finds.

Looks like it should have a higher D rating.  (It's probably easy when you know where to look.)

[+ecanderson]

Aren't they all!??! 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Yeah, probably, just struck me that way.   btw, a locomotive is not a train; a caboose is not a train.  A locomotive plus a caboose can be a train.

 

There was one here that was on a locomotive.  There are three cars connected to the back of the locomotive and a caboose about a mile away.  The cache was a black nano on a locomotive that was freshly painted all black but that didn't matter because it could only be found by feel.   I spent over 3 hours searching for it before I finally found it.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

8 DNF and 6 Finds

Underrated.

[+JL_HSTRE]

8 DNFs vs 6 Finds sounds like D3 to me, not D2.

 

7 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

One local checked on her cache after a CHS email and it only had one dnf.

 

How long had it been since the last find?

 

5 hours ago, NanCycle said:

Yeah, probably, just struck me that way.   btw, a locomotive is not a train; a caboose is not a train.  A locomotive plus a caboose can be a train.

 

And anyone who hides a magkey on either has loco motives.

[+barefootjeff]

19 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

8 DNF and 6 Finds

Underrated.

 

I would need to see the content of those DNF logs before casting judgement. Just this month I've had 2 DNFs on my multis from people who ran out of time to complete them.

[+ecanderson]

All standard DNFs.  Nothing to do with time or difficulty accessing.

 

[+The Jester]

22 hours ago, NanCycle said:

 btw, a locomotive is not a train

Oh, so when the lights flash and arms come down and a single engine passes, I don't have to stop because a "train" didn't go by? 

[+dennistubaplayer]

On 10/13/2020 at 1:19 PM, The Jester said:

Oh, so when the lights flash and arms come down and a single engine passes, I don't have to stop because a "train" didn't go by? 

I Thought that this thread was supossed to be about admins disabling caches, not trains! And yes, you should probably stop for a single locomotive. just one locomotive could take out a tank!

[+The Jester]

7 minutes ago, dennistubaplayer said:

I Thought that this thread was supossed to be about admins disabling caches, not trains! And yes, you should probably stop for a single locomotive. just one locomotive could take out a tank!

Now don't you go taking this off topic farther by starting a conversation about who/what could take out which.  (BTW, I doubt the engine would survive the encounter with a tank, but I do know a tank can take out an entire train - however you want to define "train".  Note to self: now stop that! ) 

[+HunterandSamuel]

On 9/24/2020 at 4:56 PM, Keystone said:

If you are reacting to DNF's by checking your cache and logging an "Owner Maintenance" prior to the point where the Cache Health Score hits the trigger level, then Bravo to you for being a good, responsible cache owner!  The Owner Maintenance log is what makes your Cache Health Score zoom back up to "grade A."

 

 

I always check my caches when a DNF is logged but I do not log an owner maintenance check because of it. I log a note saying it's there and all is well. 

[Keystone]

Fine.  But no complaining if you receive a Cache Health Score notification!

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

Fine.  But no complaining if you receive a Cache Health Score notification!

 

 

Ah, I see now! My bad. 

[+ecanderson]

Support for cache owners

If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache. Here are a few options [emphasis mine] for cache owners:

• Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. Post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
• Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect.
• Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a few days, disable your cache page. In the log, include the date on which you will do maintenance. After you maintained your cache, enable your cache page and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
• Archive: If you decide that it’s time for your cache to be permanently retired, please archive the cache page and retrieve all physical stages.

Just understand that the first "option" isn't really optional if you really want to avoid further interactions with the 'system', even if the cache is in good shape, or you've adjusted D/T.

 

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, ecanderson said:

Support for cache owners

If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache. Here are a few options [emphasis mine] for cache owners:

• Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. Post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
• Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect.
• Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a few days, disable your cache page. In the log, include the date on which you will do maintenance. After you maintained your cache, enable your cache page and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
• Archive: If you decide that it’s time for your cache to be permanently retired, please archive the cache page and retrieve all physical stages.

Just understand that the first "option" isn't really optional if you really want to avoid further interactions with the 'system', even if the cache is in good shape, or you've adjusted D/T.

Ah, so there's still no option for dealing with a false positive. That's unfortunate.

[+ecanderson]

If we are led to understand this correctly by Keystone, the "Owner Maintenance" log is actually the only option for dealing with false positives that trigger a CHS email.

 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, ecanderson said:

If we are led to understand this correctly by Keystone, the "Owner Maintenance" log is actually the only option for dealing with false positives that trigger a CHS email.

Of course, that doesn't distinguish between a false positive and a true positive...

[+ecanderson]

No, but it seems to be the only way a CO can 'clear the flag' for a false positive.