Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
rustynails.

Health Scores

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, The Jester said:

I had a cache archived while I was traveling, after repeated logs saying I'd check/fix it when I got home (we were traveling across the country).  The day we got home it was archived.

Maybe the reviewer decided enough was enough, and that a spot shouldn't be held indefinitely on a prolonged absence, whatever the reason.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Not all COs are friendly and nice benefactors. Many only want to supply lots of smileys. It's not always kind to send finders to unattractive locations for poor quality, abandoned  hides. 

This has nothing to do with how some COs act. It's about how we treat all COs, including the majority who are, in fact,  friendly benefactors.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, dprovan said:

This has nothing to do with how some COs act. It's about how we treat all COs, including the majority who are, in fact,  friendly benefactors.

 

It's the derilect owners that taint the experience for friendly benefactors. Some good owners can't compete, can't find a good spot to place a cache because of all the abandoned junk that gets put out by owners who have no intention of maintaining or retrieving their containers and the finders who prop them up.  Some good owners stop enjoying the experience of being a benefactor. In some areas the geocache part of geocaching becomes moot and there are few friendly benefactors left to contribute to the pastime. 

 

Would you include yourself in the good-owner friendly-benefactor category - - hide good quality cache experiences, monitor and maintain what you leave behind, read all logs that come in, always respond in a timely fashion to issues, never had a reviewer disable your cache, never had a reviewer archive your cache? I don't know if it's honest to argue for the benefactors if one does not participate in that arena. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, The Jester said:

So now you have heard of cache being archive with an active CO making an effort to stop it.

Token efforts need not apply....

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Token efforts need not apply....

 

Token?  I stated in notes that I was traveling and would do what was needed when I got home.  What more do you expect?  For me to fly all the way across the country (we were on the East Coast - Florida to Nova Scotia - but live in Washington) to take care of a box in the woods?  

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Token?  I stated in notes that I was traveling and would do what was needed when I got home.  What more do you expect?  For me to fly all the way across the country (we were on the East Coast - Florida to Nova Scotia - but live in Washington) to take care of a box in the woods?  

No, but appreciate that someone else may want to hide something. Maybe maintenance in the 4 years before archival would have saved it - that's where the effort needed to be expended, left to the eleventh hour, what did you expect?

To quote the reviewer:

Quote

...but the listing can't continue to block other placements for so long without a cache to find.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, lee737 said:
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

Token?  I stated in notes that I was traveling and would do what was needed when I got home.  What more do you expect?  For me to fly all the way across the country (we were on the East Coast - Florida to Nova Scotia - but live in Washington) to take care of a box in the woods?  

No, but appreciate that someone else may want to hide something. Maybe maintenance in the 4 years before archival would have saved it - that's where the effort needed to be expended, left to the eleventh hour, what did you expect?

To quote the reviewer:

Quote

...but the listing can't continue to block other placements for so long without a cache to find.

 

 

I'd be curious to know if another cache has actually sprung up at its location or if it's just an empty space on the map now. It's quite rare here for a new cache to appear anywhere near the space vacated by an archived one, whether it was archived by the owner or a reviewer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/5/2021 at 11:55 AM, dprovan said:

Really? After all this time? Well, OK one more time: the CHS continues the conversion of geocaching from a game in which a world full of friends play together to a product GS controls and presents to each of us individually. That changes COs from benefactors to suppliers: they are no longer considered friends doing something nice for us out of the kindness of their hearts, but, instead, are servants whose main role is maintaining product quality. That's not nice to COs, the players I consider most important to the game, and I don't think it's good for the game, either.

 

I understand that you don't care about GS taking over responsibility or maybe even think it's a good thing. But after having years of debating it, certainly you can at least try to understand why it upsets some people even as you don't share their concerns.

 

Nope, still no angst here. Sure, I realize Groundspeak is a business and that the CHS, in a round about way, is just one of the company's many attempts to make the business more profitable. Unlike you though, I don't feel the CHS is only about money. It does indeed help at times getting owners motivated to do what they agreed to do when they submitted their cache. 

 

The CHS is fairly benign and is not something that should cause anyone to panic. While it can be way off base at times, remedying it is usually fairly easy.

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Nope, still no angst here. Sure, I realize Groundspeak is a business and that the CHS, in a round about way, is just one of the company's many attempts to make the business more profitable. Unlike you though, I don't feel the CHS is only about money. It does indeed help at times getting owners motivated to do what they agreed to do when they submitted their cache. 

 

The CHS is fairly benign and is not something that should cause anyone to panic. While it can be way off base at times, remedying it is usually fairly easy.

 

Oh, well, I tried. Just for the record: your response shows that you still have no clue why people like me don't like the CHS. A business angle have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

 

Maybe it would help if you stopped thinking of my reaction as irrational, such as "angst" and "panic". I just think it's a bad idea. I don't claim it's a burden, just wrong thinking. I have logical reasons which I've explained. You think I'm just having an emotional reaction, and that makes you think I have no position worth considering. That's why you still don't see my point of view and why we can't discuss the issue.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

or if it's just an empty space on the map now.

 

It was just an empty space on the map for 4 years prior to reviewer archival. There was no cache. 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

It's the derilect owners that taint the experience for friendly benefactors.

Too true. That's exactly why bad owners should be the target of any fix, not owners in general.

 

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I don't know if it's honest to argue for the benefactors if one does not participate in that arena. 

I have no idea what you're thinking. If I were a bad owner, that would mean my point about treating good owners well is so obvious even I, as a bad owner, can see it. On the other hand, if I were a good owner, wouldn't that suggest an ulterior motive for me complaining about how good owners are being treated?

 

Anyway, of course that's irrelevant: I'm just making neutral observations about a policy that discourages good owners. Whether I myself am discouraged by that policy doesn't change the validity of the observations.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, dprovan said:

I'm just making neutral observations about a policy that discourages good owners.

 

The CHS, in my opinion encourages good ownership. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

It was just an empty space on the map for 4 years prior to reviewer archival. There was no cache. 

 

 

We must be looking at different caches then. The multi which I assume is the one in question had a waypoint problem but the final was found just a couple of weeks before its archival.

 

image.png.ca7f0fbcaa20c69ec627b66300c0edb4.png

 

From the earlier logs, it looks like the problem was first reported on the 8th of April, with an NM logged on the 29th of April. The rest is in the screenshot above.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Looks to me like a reviewer was interact with a CO and made a judgment call. (that's not a judgment about whether the call was good or bad)

IMO, the issue here to take up is between the CO and the Reviewer, and has nothing to do with the CHS.

 

(Also, Jester posted an OM without physically checking it, admittedly, which probably didn't help matters much as it removes any NM flag; but it's still disabled which is at least informative to other geocachers)

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

The CHS, in my opinion encourages good ownership. 

 

My experience with it has made me think twice about hiding any more caches in places I mightn't be able to check on at the drop of a hat in any weather or at any time of the year, particularly as I get lots of DNF logs for terrain and environmental reasons that have nothing to do with the cache. For those I have hidden since then, I'd be comfortable just archiving them on the spot and retrieving them later if there was a repeat of those circumstances. Whether that's a good outcome for the community I'll leave for others to decide.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

lots of DNF logs for terrain and environmental reasons that have nothing to do with the cache

These DNFs would be interpreted by a reviewer, and no action on the cache taken.

  • Upvote 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, lee737 said:

These DNFs would be interpreted by a reviewer, and no action on the cache taken.

 

Perhaps, although from what was said in the Meet the Reviewers session at the Morisset mega, I suspect they'd still want a cache visit and an OM log to reset the health score and stop it showing up on their system as needing attention. In any case, so far I've managed to avoid the gaze of the Grim Reaper reviewer and would like to keep it that way.

 

I often look longingly at truly remote wilderness caches like GC5KEY1, thinking how great it would be to discover somewhere spectacular like that and place a cache there, but then the thought of having to make a false-positive forced maintenance visit in the middle of summer with dessicating heat, daily storms, flooding creeks or raging fires turns me off. So I'm happy enough to see out my caching days with fun hides like GC7YP51 with sealed road access to the parking waypoint and an all-weather hiking track to GZ.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I'd be curious to know if another cache has actually sprung up at its location or if it's just an empty space on the map now. It's quite rare here for a new cache to appear anywhere near the space vacated by an archived one, whether it was archived by the owner or a reviewer.

I'm sure the flash-in-a-pan cacher that was hot to hide caches near some of the waypoints had something to do with it - but they are all archived now.  The one waypoint at a viewpoint now has a cache (several have been there before, one even while the multi was in place), but all the other points are still open and available.

Share this post


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

The CHS, in my opinion encourages good ownership. 

Do you really? To me, it obvious that the CHS *punishes* bad ownership. The difference is that when it misses, you accidentally punish good ownership. If it were as you say, it would occasionally encourage bad ownership. I'd prefer that, but that's not what happens.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Perhaps, although from what was said in the Meet the Reviewers session at the Morisset mega, I suspect they'd still want a cache visit and an OM log to reset the health score and stop it showing up on their system as needing attention. In any case, so far I've managed to avoid the gaze of the Grim Reaper reviewer and would like to keep it that way.

 

I often look longingly at truly remote wilderness caches like GC5KEY1, thinking how great it would be to discover somewhere spectacular like that and place a cache there, but then the thought of having to make a false-positive forced maintenance visit in the middle of summer with dessicating heat, daily storms, flooding creeks or raging fires turns me off. So I'm happy enough to see out my caching days with fun hides like GC7YP51 with sealed road access to the parking waypoint and an all-weather hiking track to GZ.

Hey- the Cave of Power was great! How about some of ours (like GC8Y2QH ), we can cruise past on our afternoon walks in 10 minutes?! :)  But Jeff - look at the Scenic Adventurer, how many DNFs does it actually get? 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

To me, it obvious that the CHS *punishes* bad ownership. The difference is that when it misses, you accidentally punish good ownership.

This is, of course, correct. Hopefully the team at HQ are curating the algorithm to make it as precise as possible, but it must be realised that nothing will ever be perfect, and miscalculations will occur.

Given that the spots we choose to place caches at should be worthy of visiting (why else would we put them there?), the occasional non-required visit shouldn't be seen as that much of a burden... should it?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, lee737 said:

But Jeff - look at the Scenic Adventurer, how many DNFs does it actually get? 

 

With its find rate (6 finds in 6 years and the most recent in 2017), it'd probably only take one to trigger the CHS. If that happened, well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be holding my breath in anticipation of a visit and OM log from the owner. I just hope it doesn't happen when I'm one cache short of qualifying.

 

11 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Given that the spots we choose to place caches at should be worthy of visiting (why else would we put them there?), the occasional non-required visit shouldn't be seen as that much of a burden... should it?

 

Likewise I enjoy visiting all my caches, it's why I picked those locations in the first place. They're some of my favourite spots on the coast. But the water-access ones are difficult for me in my stubby little kayak if there are lots of power boats around, which is often the case on weekends and during school holidays, and windy or stormy days or those times when the tides are the wrong way around are also out, so those visits have to be scheduled fairly carefully at times of my choosing. The same goes for my T4 hikes which I really prefer to leave for the cooler months. The short time frame of the CHS doesn't fit well with that approach, with the email going out within days of the DNF and the reviewer potentially stepping in a week later. You get a lot more leeway if someone logs an NM or an NA. Murphy's Law struck with a vengence in 2016, with the DNF on Boxing Day, the CHS ping a few days later, a flotilla of post-Christmas power craft on the waterways and winds strong enough for the winner of the Sydney to Hobart yatch race to set a record time that year. No way was I going to attempt a cache visit then and I probably would have just archived it on the spot or at least disabled it until after the school holidays if the DNFer hadn't pleaded with me to let her have another shot at it (which was successful).

 

The CHS no doubt does a good job at clearing out missing caches with long-gone owners, but most DNFs aren't due to missing caches, they're just Blind Freddies like me who'll probably come back next time better prepared and make the find. At the very least it should give us time to do that before it pulls the trigger.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I wouldn't want to be holding my breath in anticipation of a visit and OM log from the owner.

Me either!

 

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

At the very least it should give us time to do that before it pulls the trigger.

Is there less time? I mean - once it is flagged, is it not the equivalent of a NM log once a reviewer sees it? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Is there less time? I mean - once it is flagged, is it not the equivalent of a NM log once a reviewer sees it? 

 

From what I've seen, a reviewer probably won't step in on an outstanding NM for at least a month, probably longer, unless it also triggers the CHS (unlikely if the cache is still being found). I guess the timing of a CHS ping is similar to an NA, with the same boiler-plate reviewer disable and 28-day countdown to archival being used for both. But what I'd really like to see is more time allowed between the DNF and the CHS ping so the DNFer has a chance to go back and convert it to a find. If that happens, and if the CHS doesn't assume the find is fake, there's no need for it to do anything at all.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

The CHS, in my opinion encourages good ownership. 

 

Then we disagree.  We have provided ample evidence that it annoys cache owners without result; could you please give some evidence that it works?

 

I didn't think so.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

We have provided ample evidence that it annoys cache owners without result;

 

Well, there are many things that can "annoy". Is that really a Bad Thing considering the goal of the feature? What's the threshold for a sufficiently thick skin that a CO should have? They can't have everything on a silver platter :P I for one am perfectly fine being "annoyed" by an innocuous CHS ping email which I deal with (or not) reasonably, knowing that reviewers are humans and make judgment calls based on reason, and ideally the same reasoning I've done. Thus no issues.  I don't think being "annoyed" is really a good argument... but again as always, the system can certainly be improved - that will never be untrue - and I think we can all agree on that.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 9:49 AM, SamLowrey said:

This is why I don’t DNF a cache unless I suspect it is missing. At most I would have posted a note in that situation.

 

nonsense. The CHS should be tweaked to reflect a closer reality.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 12:02 PM, DreamMachine74 said:

They can't really change the DT now....the cache was been found by hundreds of users and active for over 6 years. @Isonzo Karst 

 

Wanna bet?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/4/2021 at 6:20 PM, rustynails. said:

 

Just received this evening.  Hello rustynails.,

Your geocache, Don't Climb the Pine Tree (GC4QFHN), looks like it might need some attention.

 

Yes. computers can't read. I never expected their computer could read logs.

 

 

I found that one. I personally think it's over-rated but then we all have our own way of interpreting ratings so who am I to judge.

 

I believe the CHS is a good idea that just needs more work.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bflentje said:

 

Wanna bet?

Of course they can, but it's not exactly something well appreciated, especially if it's a significant cache for the area. I mean, if your changing the DT range significantly after a few years, it's a little bizarre....of course that's just situation among many. I'm saying this from the position that the cache is a higher DT range, which it is. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I also agree however, the CHS is a little bit troublesome, but overall, it's a necessary thing in order to keep caches maintained and orderly. (Of course NA and NM logs are necessary too, though sometimes they are used rashly, even by not so new users.) As an example, the oldest cache in my city was given a NA log by someone who felt the cache was in a dangerous, erosion prone spot....the cache hasn't moved from the spot in 18 years despite her concerns. The trees around GZ held u the ground well, even though it is a bit of a stark fall down to the nearby creek,

 

(Oh, and don't paint me as a negative nancy for my previous posts, I simply didn't explain my reasoning for my opinion well enough....if this were a person to person conversation, I can assure you I'd sound less harsh or brash than I do especially in my intiial post on this thread.)

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bflentje said:

I believe the CHS is a good idea that just needs more work.

 

The CHS is a statistical tool based on counting log types (principally DNFs versus finds) and comparing those to what's "expected" for a given cache type and D/T rating, but DNFs themselves are a poor measure of cache health because most of the time there's nothing wrong with the cache and there are too many other factors at play at each location, so no amount of "more work" will make it more accurate. Go one way and it will miss more bad caches, go the other and it will ping more good caches.

 

What it really lacks is a clear fourth option (other than the three it gives in the email - fix it now and log an OM, disable until you can or archive it) for cases where the CO knows the cache is fine (perhaps from a discussion and exchange of photos with the DNF loggers or if one of those has gone back and subsequently found it) but is unable to immediately go out and verify it personally. Should they log an armchair OM? That will pacify the CHS but the reviewer might take a dim view of it. Should they just post a note? That might help the reviewer understand the situation but it won't reset the CHS. Or should they just ignore it completely? Come to the forums and you'll get told all three things but probably none of them are right. As it stands, there is no correct fourth option.

 

The conflicting goals of the CHS don't help either. It can't really be a CO policeman and a CO helper at the same time. Do enough to be accomodating to COs whose caches aren't missing and it becomes too easy for maintenance-shirkers to flout it. It would be great if COs could see their caches' health scores so they could take action in their own time before the situation becomes critical, but that will never happen because it would make it harder to catch bad COs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
10 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

We have provided ample evidence that it annoys cache owners without result;

Well, there are many things that can "annoy". Is that really a Bad Thing considering the goal of the feature? What's the threshold for a sufficiently thick skin that a CO should have? They can't have everything on a silver platter :P I for one am perfectly fine being "annoyed" by an innocuous CHS ping email which I deal with (or not) reasonably, knowing that reviewers are humans and make judgment calls based on reason, and ideally the same reasoning I've done. Thus no issues.  I don't think being "annoyed" is really a good argument... but again as always, the system can certainly be improved - that will never be untrue - and I think we can all agree on that.

fizzymagic asked for evidence that it produces results. If it doesn't work, then shouldn't the threshold for annoying people be zero?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Well, there are many things that can "annoy". Is that really a Bad Thing considering the goal of the feature?


It is not a Bad Thing if for some reason you believe that threatening customers is a good business plan.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, dprovan said:

fizzymagic asked for evidence that it produces results. If it doesn't work, then shouldn't the threshold for annoying people be zero?

 

I just want to be clear here that I did not expect any pro-CHS-nastygram people here would provide any evidence.  I don't believe that the CHS is necessarily a bad thing; if it were available to cache owners they could use it to proactively find potential problem caches.  Like, for example, putting a color-coded score on the CO page and the CO's version of the page.

 

Instead, GC has chosen to keep the CHS score secret and to use it only to send threatening emails to COs.

 

That's a very good reason to expect that no evidence in support of the current system will be forthcoming.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, fizzymagic said:

It is not a Bad Thing if for some reason you believe that threatening customers is a good business plan.

 

Well that's new.

If a CO actually feels threatened by an email suggesting there might be a problem with a cache and to take a look at it... umm... :huh: And "threatened" is a huge leap over "annoyed".

 

51 minutes ago, dprovan said:

fizzymagic asked for evidence that it produces results. If it doesn't work, then shouldn't the threshold for annoying people be zero?

 

I think there's plenty of evidence that it produces results. How many COs have checked on their caches and they've actually needed maintenance? How may have been nudged into doing it earlier than later? Sure I don't have numbers, but guaranteed it's non-zero, by far. And again, as a CO I'm not 'annoyed' at being pinged by a nudge email. And I don't think any CO should be annoyed by it (let alone "threatened"). And to disclaim as usual, yes the system can be improved.

 

2 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

pro-CHS-nastygram

 

lol, nastygram.

It's all a matter of perspective, obviously.  "Pro-badthing" and "Anti-goodthing" are terms that only fuel the fire. How about just pro/anti-CHSnudge.

Is this turning into a right vs left debate :P (#toosoon?)

 

4 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

I don't believe that the CHS is necessarily a bad thing; if it were available to cache owners they could use it to proactively find potential problem caches.  Like, for example, putting a color-coded score on the CO page and the CO's version of the page.

 

I don't disagree - to a degree. But as has been described long ago, too much info and COs can "game" the score, which defeats the entire purpose. But a basic reference would be helpful.  Don't forget they do have the list of low-score owned caches on the new Owner Dashboard. And again, nothing happens to those until a reviewer decides that something has to be done.

 

Can we stop using "threatening" to describe the friendly nudge email that does nothing beyond a reminder as a tap on the shoulder describing next steps and possible outcomes? It carries a very heavy-handed authoritarian implication. I'm not against better wording, but the fundamental feature can only be a threat if the feature itself follows up with action, which it does not. Reviewers choose to act if they deem it necessary.

 

But we all know this as it's been discussed and debated ad nauseam in prior threads... =/

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Can we stop using "threatening" to describe the friendly nudge email that does nothing beyond a reminder as a tap on the shoulder describing next steps and possible outcomes?

 

No.  Not unless the email explicirtly says that it might be in error, and that no action is required in that case.  Otherwise, "threatening" is exactly the right word.  The email basically says "unless you respond and prove that your cache is OK, we will archive it."  That is a threat.

 

How would you view an email from your bank saying "unless you can prove to our satisfaction that it was you who withdrew $100 last week, we will close your account and take all your money?"

 

Yes, the scale is different, but my point here is that the intent of the email is irrelevant.  What the emails actually say is threatening, even though the magnitude of the threat itself (archival of a cache) may not be very large. The email is not "friendly."  There is no such thing as a "friendly" email to anyone that requires action on their part.

 

As I said above, unless the email explicitly states that the notification may be in error, it is not a "nudge" or a "reminder" of any kind.  It is a demand for one of a particular set of actions, and one for which the CO is assumed to be guilty unless he or she can prove otherwise.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

There is no such thing as a "friendly" email to anyone that requires action on their part.

 

Yowza. I certainly cannot agree on that. Stating what will (even though it may) happen isn't inherently unfriendly

"Threatening", as I said, has very negative undertones. The email - as I said - explains the situation and possible outcomes. Would it be friendly if they said "please"?  The email was a statement of fact. Threatening would be more like "You are on dangerous grounds and if you do not comply immediately by doing exactly what we say, you WILL face consequences, including but not limited to having your geocache archived."  THAT I would consider "threatening".  Explaining the situation in a (relatively) respectful way is not unfriendly, let alone threatening.  Ultimatum? perhaps. Threat? Nope, we'll have to disagree on that one.

 

Note that I said, in full:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Can we stop using "threatening" to describe the friendly nudge email that does nothing beyond a reminder as a tap on the shoulder describing next steps and possible outcomes?

That is absolutely not, in and of itself, "unfriendly" or "threatening". That's a literal description of subsequent possible events. And again to disclaim: The system and wording can be improved.

 

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

How would you view an email from your bank saying "unless you can prove to our satisfaction that it was you who withdrew $100 last week, we will close your account and take all your money?"

 

Yes, the scale is different, but my point here is that the intent of the email is irrelevant.

 

The scale is extremely different - this is not a bank with clearly significant differences in privacy, importance, and activity - and dare I say even the context and circumstance is different. And the intent of the email is relevant. The intent is to alert cache owners of possible problems that may need attention - and nothing will happen without reviewer intervention (which I fully agree should be included to some degree in the email content).

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That is absolutely not, in and of itself, "unfriendly" or "threatening". That's a literal description of subsequent possible events. And again to disclaim: The system and wording can be improved.

 

A extortion note simply informing you that unless you pay the extortionists money, then, in your mind, is just a "literal description of subsequent possible events."

 

The key here is that Groundspeak requires action.  If the note were merely informative, not requiring action, it might be possibly considered a friendly reminder, but since it does require action it is not.

 

Maybe there is a different definition of "friendly" where you come from.  If I were to receive an email from a friend that told me that unless I did as they instructed me they would take a negative action against me, I would consider it less than "friendly."

 

The above is exactly what the CHS email does.  It states that unless you, the CO, takes one of a specified set of actions, the cache will be archived.  And don't bring up the "reviewer will be involved" nonsense.  The reviewer involvement is completely irrelevant.  If, after receiving the CHS nastygram,  you do not take one of the required actions, your cache will be archived by the reviewer for non-response.

 

I am very saddened to see what used to be a customer-focused company become so authoritarian and willing to treat its customers so poorly.  We were talking about evidence (of which there is still zero to support the value of the CHS emails).  Can you think of another company that sends "friendly reminders" that require you to take action?  How do those make you feel?  For example, let's say the power company sends you a "friendly reminder" that you didn't pay the bill last month, and that unless you do so immediately they will shut off your power.  Does that come across as "friendly?"  Please give a concrete example of a notice of this kind that requires action and yet is a welcome addition to our inbox.

 

That's why it is a threat.  We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Edited by fizzymagic
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, DreamMachine74 said:

I mean, if your changing the DT range significantly after a few years, it's a little bizarre...

If the situation changes, or if the CO's understanding of the situation changes, then the CO should communicate the actual situation to potential seekers. That means changing the difficulty/terrain rating(s) to match the actual situation. The length of time since the cache was published is irrelevant.

 

5 hours ago, DreamMachine74 said:

I'm saying this from the position that the cache is a higher DT range, which it is. 

Whether the changed difficulty/terrain rating is higher or lower, it shouldn't matter. The ratings should match the actual situation.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

It states that unless you, the CO, takes one of a specified set of actions, the cache will be archived.  And don't bring up the "reviewer will be involved" nonsense.  The reviewer involvement is completely irrelevant.

 

Nonsense? That's the fact of the matter. Nothing will happen unless the reviewer does something. That's not described, and as I've I believe it should be, and that the wording should be made clearer about that. it's not nonsense, and I'll raise that point as long as it's relevant.

 

 

2 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

Well yep, sorry, I just can't agree with your sentiment about the email. It's not unfriendly, it's not threatening, it is a description of the situation and what the subsequent actions will be, very much in line with guidelines and expectations of cache ownership. If that to you is threatening, then we won't see eye to eye on that. And if you want to see things change by HQ in that regards, you'll probably have to alter your argument or approach. Considering HQ authoritarian because of a respectfully worded email reminder - regardless of the fact that it describes something that "will" (even though it won't necessarily) happen - does not constitute authoritarian and threatening in my (and I'd argue most people's) eyes, and your examples of what you believe to be analogous to this are on whole different real-world levels. The tone just does not add up to the negative sentiment you're implying. So yep, respectfully we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It's not unfriendly, it's not threatening, it is a description of the situation and what the subsequent actions will be, very much in line with guidelines and expectations of cache ownership.

 

I'm curious where in the guidelines and expectations of cache ownership is there a requirement, or even an expectation, for cache owners to respond to DNF logs.

 

Quote

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. View the Cache owner dashboard to get a full view of your caches and an activity feed of logs on your hides. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

 

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.
  • Temporarily disable your cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.
  • After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.
  • If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

 

If someone logs an NM or an NA then yes, the CO has an obligation to check on the cache, disable it until they can or archive it, and if they don't do any of those things then they should expect it to catch the gaze of a reviewer. But the CHS by and large isn't driven by NM and NA logs, even though those are ones that are listed on the Help Centre page, most of the time it's pinging caches with just one or more DNF logs. The guideline it's enforcing doesn't exist.

 

I'd be much more comfortable with a system that encouraged seekers to add a Might be Missing NM to their DNF if they want the CO to check on it, and then let the CHS chase up NMs that have been ignored. An NM is a genuine request for maintenance, a DNF is not.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm curious where in the guidelines and expectations of cache ownership is there a requirement, or even an expectation, for cache owners to respond to DNF logs.

That is not what the nudge email requires.

DNF logs are one component of a cache score that indicates a potential problem if the score crosses a threshold. The email does not "require a cache owner to check on their cache because of DNF logs." So sure, that's not in the guidelines. And that's not what I said was in line with guidelines and expectations of cache ownership.

 

12 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But the CHS by and large isn't driven by NM and NA logs, even though those are ones that are listed on the Help Centre page, most of the time it's pinging caches with just one or more DNF logs. The guideline it's enforcing doesn't exist.

Because there is no guideline that says a cache owner must check a cache if they receive a nudge email, let alone for the exact reason that it received DNF logs.

What I said was it's "in line with guidelines and expectations of cache ownership" - meaning that the nudge email prompts the cache owner to ensure that their cache is in good findable condition, or consider archival. And again to disclaim: the wording can be better and consistent, because inaction does not guarantee a cache will be archived. A human reviewer has to make that judgment. 

I wish people would stop blaming DNF logs seemingly to the exclusion of all else for CHS emails. It's the most visible factor because we don't see what else causes a score to drop past a threshold - and for good reason. The DNF is obvious. The score is driven by numerous factors, and strings of DNFs (in relation to the DT rating, as we've been informed) is just one, but unfortunately a very visible one.

 

Man, okay you know, I'm going to bow out because these arguments (yeah, arguments) have been hashed over SO many times in other threads and it's almost always the same people back and forth. Opinions are strong on either side, opinions can disagree. But if you want something to change, there needs to be a good practical argument to convince HQ that the innocuous email does more harm than good. And without evidence that that's the case (other than strong voices and opinions in this tiny forum sector of the community), that probably won't happen.  Heck even adjusting the wording of the email to be more accurate to the truth probably won't happen.  But I ain't going to get angsty and annoyed let alone feel threatened over a little email I can choose to ignore which is clearly not threatening and has no teeth. It does what it's intended to do - taps me on the shoulder if it looks like a cache of mine may need attention. I deal with it (or a reviewer) and move on. Until the wording is updated, that's what I'll continue advise people. The world outside these forums is VERY different than the one inside. :P

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I wish people would stop blaming DNF logs seemingly to the exclusion of all else for CHS emails. It's the most visible factor because we don't see what else causes a score to drop past a threshold - and for good reason. The DNF is obvious. The score is driven by numerous factors, and strings of DNFs (in relation to the DT rating, as we've been informed) is just one, but unfortunately a very visible one.

 

Sorry, but if the CHS is pinging caches for reasons that are kept hidden from the CO, how is the CO meant to address and fix them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Check the cache. Post an OM.

Or post a Note.

The reviewer sees it all.

ETA: Or, ignore it and hope the reviewer sees it your way.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

No.  Not unless the email explicirtly says that it might be in error, and that no action is required in that case.  Otherwise, "threatening" is exactly the right word.  The email basically says "unless you respond and prove that your cache is OK, we will archive it."  That is a threat.

 

How would you view an email from your bank saying "unless you can prove to our satisfaction that it was you who withdrew $100 last week, we will close your account and take all your money?"

 

Yes, the scale is different, but my point here is that the intent of the email is irrelevant.  What the emails actually say is threatening, even though the magnitude of the threat itself (archival of a cache) may not be very large. The email is not "friendly."  There is no such thing as a "friendly" email to anyone that requires action on their part.

 

As I said above, unless the email explicitly states that the notification may be in error, it is not a "nudge" or a "reminder" of any kind.  It is a demand for one of a particular set of actions, and one for which the CO is assumed to be guilty unless he or she can prove otherwise.

BS

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Check the cache. Post an OM.

Or post a Note.

The reviewer sees it all.

ETA: Or, ignore it and hope the reviewer sees it your way.

Exactly. That's how it's done.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

Sorry, but if the CHS is pinging caches for reasons that are kept hidden from the CO, how is the CO meant to address and fix them?

 

Completely hidden? Guess it happens but I doubt it occurs enough to be an issue. There's usually always going to be something in the logs that give a hint an issue may exist.

 

I'm normally against doing stuff like this, (putting my flame retardant suit on now), but if there was no evidence of a problem, then I'd log an OM stating that I believed the cache was good to go. I'd also make sure to watch it for any signs that I might have got it wrong.

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

There's usually always going to be something in the logs that give a hint an issue may exist.

Usually, perhaps. But what about times when there isn't? It's those false positives that people are complaining about.

 

 

5 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I'm normally against doing stuff like this, (putting my flame retardant suit on now), but if there was no evidence of a problem, then I'd log an OM stating that I believed the cache was good to go.

Not all COs are comfortable posting armchair OM logs. Plus, the "friendly email" sent by the system doesn't even suggest that as an option.

 

Not everyone reads the forums to stay abreast of such tricks.

Share this post


Link to post

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. View the Cache owner dashboard to get a full view of your caches and an activity feed of logs on your hides. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.
  • Temporarily disable your cache page when the cache is not available or you need time to fix reported problems. A cache page can stay disabled for a reasonable amount of time - generally up to four weeks.
  • After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.
  • If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.
  • Funny 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...