Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
FiveEyes

Geocaching admin temporarily disabling caches

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, ecanderson said:

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

Clearing the flag isn't the only goal when the system sends a false positive.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

Clearing the flag isn't the only goal when the system sends a false positive.

Not following you.  If the CO knows it's a false positive, what other point would there be to the Owner Maintenance Log apart from avoiding having a reviewer have to manually check the conditions that triggered it?  Many times, the log history isn't such that even finders would be put off by what they see in those logs.  The health-o-meter can be pretty twitchy at times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, ecanderson said:
58 minutes ago, niraD said:

Clearing the flag isn't the only goal when the system sends a false positive.

Not following you.  If the CO knows it's a false positive, what other point would there be to the Owner Maintenance Log apart from avoiding having a reviewer have to manually check the conditions that triggered it?  Many times, the log history isn't such that even finders would be put off by what they see in those logs.  The health-o-meter can be pretty twitchy at times.

Some of us might be interested in helping to fix/improve the system to reduce the number of false positives in the future. Clearing the flag isn't the only thing we might want to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, 100% agreed, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in new input regarding an algorithm we can't even truly assess.

I was only referencing the current situation as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, ecanderson said:

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

 

And a good thing IMO. It's good for the pastime when owners are active, check their listings and caches, and respond to issues in a timely fashion.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


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

And a good thing IMO. It's good for the pastime when owners are active, check their listings and caches, and respond to issues in a timely fashion.  

 

In an ideal world, yes, but most of the active cachers from the first decade of the game (2000-2010) have now disappeared but their good solid caches (often ammo cans) live on and are likely to remain in good condition for decades to come. A CHS ping following a few DNFs that mightn't have had anything to do with the cache, leading to a reviewer TD which then goes unheeded for the 28 days allowed until archival, and that's one less good servicable cache in an area that mightn't have had many to start with and has few new caches coming along to replace them.

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The other option is to take someone to the cache (or request someone go find it) so they can log a legitimate Found It log. As far as we understand, that also resets (or at least reduces) the CHS level.

Essentially, any log that implies the cache at latest knowledge is in findable condition tells the system not to be alert about it.  That's an OM or a Found It log.

(though assumedly the OM is much more effective by nixing the score, than a Found It which may just reduce the score, but that's just an inference)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I saw something today that seems the opposite of the title of this thread. Over the span of four and a half years there were seven DNF logs on a fairly high rated cache. A few months ago someone logged a needs maintenance, finally! The two found it logs before the seven dnfs both mentioned the log was soaked. I'm really surprised that the CHS wasn't triggered for this cache, or if it was, no action was taken. 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My reviewer has been very understanding regarding issues with my caches.   I'm sure the fact that I've continued to post my maintenance intentions has a lot to do with it as dose my past ownership history.   As long as you show your active and working on the issues I think most reviewers will give you a lot of slack.  Of course at some point you have to follow through with your promises.   I do believe your cache ownership history (or lack of) plays a role in all of this.          

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, justintim1999 said:

I do believe your cache ownership history (or lack of) plays a role in all of this.          

 

I don't think your previous standards of ownership can be written into an algorithm that tracks the health of a cache.  The CHS is automated so I don't see how it could take your prior maintenance into account. However, I do agree that your past can, and probably does, have some influence with your local reviewer regarding maintenance issues that might arise on one's caches, including how a reviewer will choose to deal with your cache should it run afoul of the CHS.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

My reviewer has been very understanding regarding issues with my caches.   

I'm sure the fact that I've continued to post my maintenance intentions has a lot to do with it as dose my past ownership history. 

 As long as you show your active and working on the issues I think most reviewers will give you a lot of slack.  Of course at some point you have to follow through with your promises.   I do believe your cache ownership history (or lack of) plays a role in all of this.          

 

Agreed.  I feel an algorithm doesn't have that human ability to understand why.   Yet.   So this hobby really does rely on its Reviewers.   :)

 - But if we ever do get to true AI everywhere ...look out !    :D

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

But if we ever do get to true AI everywhere ...look out ! 

b1d27e90dde59b98959613b31151a985.jpg.ea185df838487f9da7fe6340587542ee.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Time-traveling AI, much worse.

Wow - would that ever screw up the FTF hounds!

Share this post


Link to post

I havent retrieved any of these 'notes' but I have to say that it isnt always the easiest thing to get to your own cache in the limited time for repairs etc. Life does exist for some of us outside of caching. I had almost 2 yrs that I was commuting from DC to Chicago about every other month & would be there for a month at a time. When I  got a reviewers post that a cache had several DNF's & needed to be checked or a NM. I would post on that page that I was out of town on family medical & would attend to it ASAP. If this is now done by a bot there is no way to even communicate the situation for understanding. Seems a bit harsh. I was fortunate I had some super great caching friends that would see the cache disabled or in need of & would kindly drop by & take care of it but not everyone is that lucky.

When a cacher complains that those of us who are CO should respond to the DNF's by checking the caches has obviously never been a CO. I cant tell you how many times I literally stopped what I was doing to go ck  from logs for missing caches only to find the cache is right there where it belongs. After a few yrs of that I didnt run out right away. So from our side of the fence... you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing & it isnt because you just couldnt find it because it stinks when we have to go out only to find it right where it should be.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have so few caches compared to many others, as I only have the number of caches I am prepared to look after. People should only publish as many as they can handle; no more. Some people publish more than they are prepared/capable of looking after; then then complain when they get messages about them.

I have been on holidays and just returned, and today I have three caches to check on. One that got a DNF while I was away, and two that might need maintenance. All within cycling/walking distance of my house. I am not complaining about getting messages about these caches; in fact I am grateful for messages, as it allows me to keep my caches in good condition. The people who annoy me are those who don't tell me about a problem; not the people who are thoughtful enough to let me know of a problem. I have never had a message from, or a cache disabled by geocaching, because I have only the number of caches I am willing to maintain and I maintain them.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Mother Wolf said:

you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing & it isnt because you just couldnt find it 

This is not the point of DNFs. We log DNFs on any cache we looked for and could not find. Simple as that.

And besides, how can you be sure if it's missing or not?

Edited by TmdAndGG
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Mother Wolf said:

When I  got a reviewers post that a cache had several DNF's & needed to be checked or a NM. I would post on that page that I was out of town on family medical & would attend to it ASAP. If this is now done by a bot there is no way to even communicate the situation for understanding. Seems a bit harsh. I was fortunate I had some super great caching friends that would see the cache disabled or in need of & would kindly drop by & take care of it but not everyone is that lucky.

You're misunderstanding the process.  The algorithm searches for caches that MAY need an owner visit, and the automated message triggered by the "bot" is sent privately to just the cache owner, via email.  This gives you, as the owner, the opportunity to decide what to do.  Then, if there is not an owner action after a period of time passes, the cache with a low health score goes into a queue for review by the local Community Volunteer Reviewer.  As experienced cache owners, Reviewers can tell which possible maintenance issues are legitimate and which ones can be ignored (at least for the time being).

 

Quote

When a cacher complains that those of us who are CO should respond to the DNF's by checking the caches has obviously never been a CO. I cant tell you how many times I literally stopped what I was doing to go ck  from logs for missing caches only to find the cache is right there where it belongs. After a few yrs of that I didnt run out right away. So from our side of the fence... you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing & it isnt because you just couldnt find it because it stinks when we have to go out only to find it right where it should be.

Speaking as a player, I will continue logging DNF any time when I made a good faith search for a cache at ground zero, but didn't find it.  In contrast, as a player I would not log "Needs Maintenance" or "Needs Archived" unless my experience was in line with prior visitors, and/or I found the cache in serious disrepair.

  • Upvote 6
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Mother Wolf said:

you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing & it isnt because you just couldnt find it

Whaaaaa?

 

Do you know what DNF stands for? It stands for Did Not Find. It does not stand for "The Cache Is Not There".

 

 

 

Edited by Max and 99
  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Mother Wolf said:

So from our side of the fence... you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing & it isnt because you just couldnt find it because it stinks when we have to go out only to find it right where it should be.

Sorry, no. If I get to GZ and search, I'm going to log a Find or a DNF. That's the point of a DNF log: Did Not Find.

 

If the CHS is causing problems by nagging cache owners based on false positives, then the CHS needs to be fixed. Expecting people to log their finds and DNFs differently is the wrong approach.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mother Wolf said:

you, as the cacher posting a DNF, better be darn sure the cache is missing

Wow, how can you NOT know the meaning of DNF after finding over 2,000 caches. Haven't you ever not found a cache? It stands for Did Not Find (NM is for missing caches, but usually after a row of DNFs), and when you haven't found a cache you should have been logging DNFs. If not, why not? It's to assist the CO. I as a CO find DNFs helpful, because it lets me know there might be a problem; although the experience of the finder is also taken into account when considering DNFs. The cache might be missing, or it might be rated incorrectly. Lots of DNFs on a 1.5D cache for instance, means the difficulty is underrated, or maybe the terrain. Hopefully the log will mention what the problem is. For example, "I saw the cache, but couldn't reach it, would indicate a terrain reason, rather than difficulty reason".

 

I only checked your traditional finds (last one found 12/Oct/2019), but from that, it does appear you have not been active for about a year, and that most of your caches have been archived, so guessing you are not maintaining them, which might lead to the few remaining receiving notices about them.

 

1 hour ago, Mother Wolf said:

When I  got a reviewers post that a cache had several DNF's & needed to be checked or a NM. I would post on that page that I was out of town on family medical & would attend to it ASAP.

You shouldn't be waiting that long. You should have at least posted a note way before that. Reading the logs would have informed you of the problems.

 

Three caches I am planning to attend to this afternoon (would have done it sooner, but I was out of town), have not even had a NM yet, but the logs tell me there is a problem, or potential problem. I only have a few caches, as that's all I am prepared to look after.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
2 hours ago, Mother Wolf said:

When I  got a reviewers post that a cache had several DNF's & needed to be checked or a NM. I would post on that page that I was out of town on family medical & would attend to it ASAP.

You shouldn't be waiting that long. You should have at least posted a note way before that. Reading the logs would have informed you of the problems.

 

DNFs don't always mean there are problems, in fact the vast majority don't, but the CHS treats them all the same. The only problem mentioned in the DNF I had on my multi that triggered the CHS email a few years back was that there were muggles gathered close to GZ, something as a CO I couldn't do anything about anyway.

 

There's a D3 tradtional in Sydney that gets its fair share of DNFs, as you'd expect for a D3. Last year (or was it the year before?) it got a handful of DNFs from mostly newbies, plus one of them added an NM as well, which resulted in a CHS ping. The CO posted a note saying, given its previous history and the nature of the hide, he was pretty sure it was still there but would check when next in the area, but the reviewer still went ahead, disabling it and starting the archival clock ticking. When the CO did check, the cache was fine. On all but the most trivial of caches (and even on some of them), DNFs are a poor measure of cache health because typically 90% of the time there's nothing wrong with the cache.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

DNFs don't always mean there are problems, in fact the vast majority don't, but the CHS treats them all the same.

 

Why is that a "but"?  The CHS treats all DNFs as potential issues with a cache (whether it's posted because of an actual issue or not). It doesn't treat every DNF as an issue with a cache. Lowering an overall health score a bit isn't the definition of an issue. So, "DNFs don't always mean there are problems, and the CHS treats them all the same."  A DNF doesn't trigger a CHS email - not unless there's a string of other potential recent issues that knock it over a threshold to actually send a private nudge that "hey, it looks like there might be a problem with your cache". Which, as has been well discussed, doesn't actually do anything to the cache except put it in front a human reviewer who can make a subjective judgment call if the CO hasn't already addressed the potential issue.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Why is that a "but"?  The CHS treats all DNFs as potential issues with a cache (whether it's posted because of an actual issue or not). It doesn't treat every DNF as an issue with a cache. Lowering an overall health score a bit isn't the definition of an issue. So, "DNFs don't always mean there are problems, and the CHS treats them all the same."  A DNF doesn't trigger a CHS email - not unless there's a string of other potential recent issues that knock it over a threshold to actually send a private nudge that "hey, it looks like there might be a problem with your cache". Which, as has been well discussed, doesn't actually do anything to the cache except put it in front a human reviewer who can make a subjective judgment call if the CO hasn't already addressed the potential issue.

 

Sure, it doesn't treat every DNF as an issue, but it can't distinguish between the ones that say "I lifted the lamp post skirt mentioned in the hint but there was nothing under it" and those that say "there was a muggle sitting right at GZ so I'll have to come back another day" or whatever other reason there might be that's unrelated to the health of the cache. In my case, a single DNF did trigger a CHS email as the cache was only six weeks old and the only other logs were a find (with FP) and a WN, but that might well have been due to a bug in the algorithm that's since been fixed. There are still reports, though, of CHS emails after just a small number of DNFs and no other issues. The impression I get is that the CHS looks at the DNF to find ratio with a bias towards the more recent logs, so if a cache gets few finds and there's a long time since the most recent one, one or two DNFs may well trigger the email. One of my caches (GC8DQXK), published over a year ago, had two finds in the first week and nothing since, so I'd be curious to know how many DNFs it would take now for it to be pinged. I suspect it wouldn't be many, maybe even just one.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Keystone said:

You're misunderstanding the process.  The algorithm searches for caches that MAY need an owner visit, and the automated message triggered by the "bot" is sent privately to just the cache owner, via email.  This gives you, as the owner, the opportunity to decide what to do.  Then, if there is not an owner action after a period of time passes, the cache with a low health score goes into a queue for review by the local Community Volunteer Reviewer.  As experienced cache owners, Reviewers can tell which possible maintenance issues are legitimate and which ones can be ignored (at least for the time being).

Is this something that's been improved, or are you saying it's always been this way. I understand the procedure before it's kicked out to a reviewer, but I've seen several examples where it was very obvious from the logs that the cache was in place and in good condition, yet the reviewer archived it with no comment anyway, as if just rubberstamping the CHS results. Maybe my examples were just back in the cache quality panic and reviewers were hot to get anything off the books that would look bad numerically.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I've seen several examples where it was very obvious from the logs

Actually there is nothing obvious as logs might be deleted (by the logger, the owner or an admin) and we might see only part of what happend. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 8:05 PM, niraD said:

Sorry, no. If I get to GZ and search, I'm going to log a Find or a DNF. That's the point of a DNF log: Did Not Find.

 

If the CHS is causing problems by nagging cache owners based on false positives, then the CHS needs to be fixed. Expecting people to log their finds and DNFs differently is the wrong approach.

 

This. Exactly as stated.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/23/2020 at 9:05 PM, niraD said:

If the CHS is causing problems by nagging cache owners based on false positives, then the CHS needs to be fixed.

 

I think COs' attitudes need some fixing too. It's easy to follow through with an OM or a note--we don't even have to get off the couch (if the issue doesn't require a visit). Better yet, go check the cache for confirmation that the cache is OK. We agreed to abide by the guidelines when submitting a listing. If we have so many caches that it's annoying to even have to write a note, perhaps we have too many caches (even if it's only one cache). 

Edited by L0ne.R
Bracketed statement to make the statement clearer.
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/24/2020 at 1:22 AM, barefootjeff said:

Sure, it doesn't treat every DNF as an issue, but it can't distinguish between the ones that say "I lifted the lamp post skirt mentioned in the hint but there was nothing under it" and those that say "there was a muggle sitting right at GZ so I'll have to come back another day" or whatever other reason there might be that's unrelated to the health of the cache. In my case, a single DNF did trigger a CHS email as the cache was only six weeks old and the only other logs were a find (with FP) and a WN, but that might well have been due to a bug in the algorithm that's since been fixed. There are still reports, though, of CHS emails after just a small number of DNFs and no other issues. The impression I get is that the CHS looks at the DNF to find ratio with a bias towards the more recent logs, so if a cache gets few finds and there's a long time since the most recent one, one or two DNFs may well trigger the email. One of my caches (GC8DQXK), published over a year ago, had two finds in the first week and nothing since, so I'd be curious to know how many DNFs it would take now for it to be pinged. I suspect it wouldn't be many, maybe even just one.

 

So, a few things here...

First, "DNF to find ratio" != "DNF", and that was my point. The CHS goes by a score composed of multiple factors. If it thought a DNF meant there was an issue, any DNF would always trigger the nudge. That doesn't happen. It can happen if a DNF pushes the score over the threshold. But a number of other factors may do that as well - and like DNFs, those factors may not themselves necessarily mean a cache has an issue either.

 

Granted, some people may look as anything that reduces a general score as a fundamental negative, and if that's the case there's no convincing them that the CHS system doesn't think a DNF is "bad", simply for the fact that it reduces a score. But then it's arguing semantics :)  Practically speaking, a DNF doesn't mean a cache IS missing, and the CHS does not treat it that way. But it does consider it a potential problem, and that's why the score is slightly reduced.  That much at least we do know, as we've been told, and as we see in effect. 

 

Secondly, "the impression I get" isn't really a point to discuss; we can infer all we want from what we see and come to different conclusions. We haven't been told the details of the algorithm beyond the most obvious effect that DNFs have on it, and for good reason.

And for the instance of your cache, being I assume an older occurrence, it's likely as you say a bug that's since been fixed. But think of it this way - how many other caches out there have the same circumstances as yours but don't get the same CHS nudge?  Especially if it hasn't happened for a long time, it likely was a quirk that's been fixed. But even if not, we don't know specifically why you (or others) got that nudge, and almost certainly we won't be told, otherwise it could be gamed.

 

In the end, even if I think the CHS is wrong and I get a nudge where I don't think it was called for, all I have to do is respond to it within reason. No issue at all. Nothing will happen to my cache unless a reviewer thinks there IS an actual problem.  And if I care enough, perhaps I could report my findings and perhaps the algorithm might be tweaked. But I'd likely never be privy to finding out.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/25/2020 at 4:02 PM, L0ne.R said:

It's easy to follow through with an OM or a note--we don't even have to get off the couch.

 

So now you're an advocate for armchair OM logs?

 

On 11/25/2020 at 4:02 PM, L0ne.R said:

I think COs' attitudes need some fixing too

 

You do realize that the portion of the quote from niraD is an explicit reference to specific situations when an automated program sends out false positives.   A false positive, by definition, is an incorrect conclusion that the program has made that suggests something might be wrong with the cache when there's nothing actually wrong.  I've had at least one email (maybe 2?), a false positive with the cache in question in good shape.  Are you telling me that my prior frustration (even though it was minimal, it was still frustrating) was unwarranted and I need to get over it?  If the program that thinks there might be an issue with your cache is wrong, then why should the fix be an attitude adjustment of the CO rather than the fixing of the program that got it wrong? It's not an infallible system that guarantees that there's an issue.  It makes mistakes, just like cachers can.  

 

I hide my caches so I have to do as little maintenance as possible - good containers in locations that aren't apt to be visited by muggles with logs that hopefully will last a long time- not hide them and then think that they will never need maintenance because of the container, the location, and the size of the log.  I would rather rely on the logs of those that actually visit the area where the caches are located than an automated program that can't differentiate between DNF logs that show they were actually there and DNF logs that show they never made it to the area where the cache is hidden and that every DNF, regardless of the validity, counts as a negative mark against the score of the cache.  

 

I realize that receiving a CHS email isn't that big a deal.  For most of my caches, it's an easy thing to head out and visit the cache to verify that everything is OK or verify that there truly is something wrong with the cache.  I've not received a CHS email since my last one (I can't even tell you how long ago it was but at least a few years) so it appears that it was tweaked in some manner to address that, at least as it applies to my caches.  

 

On 11/25/2020 at 11:19 PM, thebruce0 said:

And if I care enough, perhaps I could report my findings and perhaps the algorithm might be tweaked.

 

One of my biggest issues with the CHS is that there's no way for anyone to report a false positive should they get an email that's incorrect.  We're able to do something about it if it IS correct (OM log on the cache in question) but nothing to notify those that monitor the algorithm that, in this case, it was wrong.  I know the OM will reset the score, clear the "flag", and allow you to post a note saying that the CHS got it wrong, but the goal should be to help make the CHS a more accurate program, not one that sends out emails for caches that are fine and have no way to provide feedback that lets them adjust the parameters to minimize those types of errors.

 

On 11/25/2020 at 11:19 PM, thebruce0 said:

Practically speaking, a DNF doesn't mean a cache IS missing, and the CHS does not treat it that way. But it does consider it a potential problem, and that's why the score is slightly reduced.  That much at least we do know, as we've been told, and as we see in effect. 

 

Let's examine this "potential problem" that the CHS sees when a DNF is logged. The CHS seems to view a found log as an affirmation that the cache is in place and awards either a positive bump up in points or doesn't remove any points (which is it? I can't remember).  It's not awarding points because it's in good shape, a fun hide, or a neat gadget cache.  It's awarding points  (or at the very least not removing points) because it was found and therefore proven to be in play (even false found logs). The only real thing we can garner from a DNF causing points to be removed, then, is that the CHS views it as a cache that's not in play, and therefore a deduction from the overall score.  While you claim it's not because the CHS sees it as missing, I don't see any other reasons for why the CHS assigns a negative value to a DNF.  It can't be because of potential maintenance on a cache that's in bad shape.  That would be a found log along with what I hope would be the accompanying NM log (or NA log if appropriate), which falls into its own category within the CHS.  What other reason could the CHS have for deducting points for a DNF?  You keep saying it's not because it assumes it's missing but I can't recall you offering up any other reasons for why a DNF automatically has a negative point value.  What other valid reasons would support a DNF having a negative effect on the health score of a cache?  What other valid reasons would support a find having a positive (or a net 0) effect on the health score?

 

It basically boils down to this for the CHS .  Find - good ; DNF - bad.  I'm using bad/good only as it pertains to what the effect is on the score of a cache, not whether or not the action is good or bad in a moral sense.  What's the only thing an automated program can ascertain about these two choices and the subsequent point actions taken when each of these two log types are filed?  It will either add (or net 0) points for when it receives a "good" log or subtract points for what it receives a "bad" log to the CHS of an individual cache.  It's not programmed to weigh the value of a DNF as to whether or not it MIGHT be missing, at least as far as I know.  Those two variables can't take into account the maintenance status of the cache in question.  They CAN take into account the D/T rating and make the point removal less impactful for higher D/T caches and more impactful for lower D/T caches when a DNF is logged.  However, the CHS still removes points since it sees a DNF as a negative score adjustment and a find as a positive score adjustment (or net 0) since it sees them as "bad" and "good" only.  The only assumption for an automatic negative score reduction associated for a DNF is that the CHS assumes a worst case scenario.

 

Rightfully so, the CHS can't act unilaterally, even if it assumes the cache is missing.  That's left to the reviewer, if the CO chooses not to act on it first.  Also, keep in mind that typically we're talking about accumulated DNFs, not single instances of a DNF being filed and triggering the CHS.  I'm sure that happens but it's been quite some time since anyone has posted anything quite like that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

I realize that receiving a CHS email isn't that big a deal.  For most of my caches, it's an easy thing to head out and visit the cache to verify that everything is OK or verify that there truly is something wrong with the cache.

 

It becomes more of a concern for those caches that can't be so easily checked. Seven of my hides are T4 or higher and are not in the sorts of places to go check on in the middle of a summer heatwave, especially if there's a high risk of fires and storms. These caches get few finds (four of those seven have single digit find counts) while offering plenty of scope for environmentally-related DNFs, so are probably prime candidates for false-positive CHS pings, and if that were to happen again at a time when access is difficult or too dangerous, I'd have to seriously consider whether archival and retrieval of the container next autumn might be the simplest option.

 

But my main concern isn't about my caches, I can deal with those when the time comes, but others that are far harder for a CO to check on than mine, like the one I did for my 1000th find which is a full day of rugged hiking from the nearest road access. That one really needs a "not available in summer" attribute and probably wouldn't survive a mid-summer CHS ping. T4 and T4.5 caches, which are often what I'd consider to be the pinnacle of caching experiences, are becoming an increasingly rare treat in these parts and are something we can ill afford to lose when there's actually nothing wrong with the cache.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The only real thing we can garner from a DNF causing points to be removed, then, is that the CHS views it as a cache that's not in play, and therefore a deduction from the overall score.

Nope. Nowhere can that be demonstrated. If the CHS thought a DNF meant a cache was not in play then every single DNF logged should either prompt a nudge email or take preemptive action and disable the cache. It does not. It does not think a DNF means a cache is not in play.

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

While you claim it's not because the CHS sees it as missing, I don't see any other reasons for why the CHS assigns a negative value to a DNF.

That is exactly why I said:

 

On 11/25/2020 at 11:19 PM, thebruce0 said:

Granted, some people may look as anything that reduces a general score as a fundamental negative, and if that's the case there's no convincing them that the CHS system doesn't think a DNF is "bad", simply for the fact that it reduces a score.

You're arguing semantics. A score being reduced is "bad" but is "bad" the same "sees it as missing"?  Practically speaking, no. You have to infer that based solely on holding a lesser score as universally just as bad as crossing the threshold to a nudge email, or worse.

As explained everywhere, the algorithm cannot possibly know whether any log is true or false, or attempt to interpret why a DNF was posted. And that is why it doesn't assume a DNF means a cache is missing. A lesser score does not mean a cache is missing. As I already explained, a lesser score can come from any number of factors, and a DNF is but one of them.

 

Debate about whether a DNF should reduce the score, sure. But you'd be wrong in attempting to equate a lesser score with the algorithm interpreting any and all DNFs as "cache is missing".

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

What other reason could the CHS have for deducting points for a DNF?  You keep saying it's not because it assumes it's missing but I can't recall you offering up any other reasons for why a DNF automatically has a negative point value.

Because it could mean there might be an issue with the cache. Alone, it doesn't. Combined with other factors, the chance of there being a problem is increased. Once at the threshold, then a nudge is sent; caused by any number of potential factors. And a human reviewer decides if action needs to be taken. This is repeated over, and over, and over again in these CHS discussions.

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

It's not programmed to weigh the value of a DNF as to whether or not it MIGHT be missing, at least as far as I know.

There are numerous factors. There may even be mitigating contextual factors that weigh the value of a DNF itself. Apart from D and T which we've been informed, we don't know. Once again, the DNF is not an absolute. But it is a factor that alters the 'risk' assessment that a cache may need attention.

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

The only assumption for an automatic negative score reduction associated for a DNF is that the CHS assumes a worst case scenario.

Obviously not, because no action is taken on the cache PURELY on the existence of a DNF. A lesser score is not action on a geocache if your assumption is that it thinks the DNF means the cache is missing - in which case with any DNF logged it should simply disable the cache, or send a nudge, or alert a reviewer. It does none of those things based PURELY on the new DNF.

Don't know how many other ways there are to say it.

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Rightfully so, the CHS can't act unilaterally, even if it assumes the cache is missing.

That's because it doesn't think the cache is missing based solely on one DNF.

 

 

17 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Also, keep in mind that typically we're talking about accumulated DNFs, not single instances of a DNF being filed and triggering the CHS.  I'm sure that happens but it's been quite some time since anyone has posted anything quite like that.

 

But now you're talking about multiple DNFs, not a single DNF. Multiple DNFs in a row can absolutely mean there's more risk of a problem with the cache; again, almost certainly weighed against other contextual factors, like D and T. But it can be programmed to treat a single DNF vastly different than 10.  So no, once again, the CHS algorithm doesn't assume that "a DNF means the cache is missing" - and that is the point I'm addressing.

 

  • Helpful 1

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 4

×
×
  • Create New...