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

Health Scores

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, niraD said:

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.

 

Yes, an armchair OM is too much against the grain for me to ever consider doing it. I'm even reluctant to post an OM after a routine visit unless I've actually fixed something that was broken, as I often visit them a lot more often than they're found. If I got a CHS ping on a cache I couldn't safely check on in the allowed time and had to make a choice between an armchair OM and archival, I'd choose archival. For me, caching (both seeking and hiding) is a fun pastime to see out my retirement years, and if keeping a hide going means battling the system beyond the point where it stops being fun, I'll just concede defeat and hit Archive.

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically.

 

I'm not sure what point you're making here or who it's directed to, but I'm more than happy to visit my caches periodically and, with limited finds available around here now, a lot of my enjoyment in the game comes from those visits. But there are some of my higher terrain ones where, depending on the time of year or weather conditions, I can't always do that safely at short notice. And it's not just me, there are other much tougher caches than mine out there where any CO visit would be a major undertaking requiring careful planning and close attention to the weather and other hazards. With an NM, you can ask the person who logged it for more information about the problem and work through a solution but you can't do that with a CHS ping as it's a one-way communication. The lack of any advance warning and the short time frame allowed for a response makes this problematic for hard-to-reach caches, especially if the CO already knows it's a false positive and the cache is fine. In such circumstances, it comes down to choosing between a hazardous journey, an armchair OM or mounting a defence to try to get an exemption from a reviewer. For me, none of those is fun.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, an armchair OM is too much against the grain for me to ever consider doing it. I'm even reluctant to post an OM after a routine visit unless I've actually fixed something that was broken, as I often visit them a lot more often than they're found. If I got a CHS ping on a cache I couldn't safely check on in the allowed time and had to make a choice between an armchair OM and archival, I'd choose archival. For me, caching (both seeking and hiding) is a fun pastime to see out my retirement years, and if keeping a hide going means battling the system beyond the point where it stops being fun, I'll just concede defeat and hit Archive.

 

 

Again, I normally would never consider logging an OM without first physically checking on and making repairs to my cache as necessary. My suggestion was only put forth for a situation like you described,,, receiving a CHS email on a cache that shows no indication of having a problem. I honestly doubt many COs have been put in this situation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

if there was no evidence of a problem, then I'd log an OM stating that I believed the cache was good to go

Surely if there is no problem, such as a string of DNFs, NMs and NA, the CO wouldn't receive an email. I only do an OM when I visit the cache to check it. I would have thought a reviewer would check say a string of DNFs to read what the problem was and if it was for things such as, "When I got to the car park, the heavens opened and I drove home without attempting this", an email wouldn't be sent, as compared to a string of, "We searched, but couldn't find the cache." If I got a string of DNFs like the last example, I wouldn't wait for a NM or an email, I would have gone and checked the cache, and either confirmed the cache was still okay, or replaced it if it were missing. THEN done an OM.

Share this post


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

Surely if there is no problem, such as a string of DNFs, NMs and NA, the CO wouldn't receive an email. I only do an OM when I visit the cache to check it. I would have thought a reviewer would check say a string of DNFs to read what the problem was and if it was for things such as, "When I got to the car park, the heavens opened and I drove home without attempting this", an email wouldn't be sent, as compared to a string of, "We searched, but couldn't find the cache." If I got a string of DNFs like the last example, I wouldn't wait for a NM or an email, I would have gone and checked the cache, and either confirmed the cache was still okay, or replaced it if it were missing. THEN done an OM.

 

Don't call me Shirley :). This was the state of play at the time my 2/5 multi was pinged between Christmas and New Year in 2016:

 

PingedCache.thumb.jpg.5dc83e7f39794c911fd758633230c217.jpg

 

Note the dates: the cache was only 6 weeks old when it was pinged. The only explanation I was given was that 6-week-old 2/5 multis ought to get a lot more than just one find, but no amount of CO visits to GZ or armchair OMs will fix that. As the DNFer mentioned in her log, there were muggles camped close by and in private communications with an exchange of photos it turned out she'd been looking in the wrong place as a result. She went back a week later and made an easy find with the cache in pristine condition.

 

There have been a few similar ones posted on the forums since then, mostly brand new caches that haven't had time to get many finds, but I haven't seen anything quite like that recently so maybe the CHS has been tweaked to be a bit more forgiving to younglings.


Edit to add: I should say that at no time was I concerned that my cache would be archived, as clearly any reviewer who looked at it would see it had no case to answer, particularly after the DNFer logged her find. The difficulty I had was trying to find out what was the correct thing to do as a responsible CO to appease the CHS, since I was unable to visit the cache at the time and didn't want to disable or archive it either. I'm still waiting to find out what that proper fourth option is for circumstances like this.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

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.

I agree - if there were a handful of DNFs detailing why they couldn't get to search etc (weather/muggles/whatever) and was pinged electronically by the CHS, I'd be happy to ping back electronically with an OM log, detailing why I didn't go out and check.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Note the dates: the cache was only 6 weeks old when it was pinged. The only explanation I was given was that 6-week-old 2/5 multis ought to get a lot more than just one find, but no amount of CO visits to GZ or armchair OMs will fix that. As the DNFer mentioned in her log, there were muggles camped close by and in private communications with an exchange of photos it turned out she'd been looking in the wrong place as a result. She went back a week later and made an easy find with the cache in pristine condition.

 

There have been a few similar ones posted on the forums since then, mostly brand new caches that haven't had time to get many finds, but I haven't seen anything quite like that recently so maybe the CHS has been tweaked to be a bit more forgiving to younglings.


Edit to add: I should say that at no time was I concerned that my cache would be archived, as clearly any reviewer who looked at it would see it had no case to answer, particularly after the DNFer logged her find. The difficulty I had was trying to find out what was the correct thing to do as a responsible CO to appease the CHS, since I was unable to visit the cache at the time and didn't want to disable or archive it either. I'm still waiting to find out what that proper fourth option is for circumstances like this.

 

This case is clearly one of false activation of the CHS system Jeff - I would have deleted the email and not thought more on it?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The only explanation I was given was that 6-week-old 2/5 multis ought to get a lot more than just one find, but no amount of CO visits to GZ or armchair OMs will fix that.

 

Who was it contacted you? Was it a local reviewer, or HQ? A local reviewer should know better, but someone at HQ comes from a place where there are more people to cache and might be thinking of your cache in those terms.

(Plus that's a 5T!)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Who was it contacted you? Was it a local reviewer, or HQ? A local reviewer should know better, but someone at HQ comes from a place where there are more people to cache and might be thinking of your cache in those terms.

(Plus that's a 5T!)

 

Nah, it wasn't a local reviewer. I guess 5T multis are a lot more popular where the CHS programmers live. In the four years since that episode, my cache has only had 5 more finds but thankfully no more DNFs.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, lee737 said:

 

This case is clearly one of false activation of the CHS system Jeff - I would have deleted the email and not thought more on it?

And, as Jeff's case was early in the piece, I'm almost certain the algorithms have been tweaked since then.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

 I would have thought a reviewer would check say a string of DNFs to read what the problem was and if it was for things such as, "When I got to the car park, the heavens opened and I drove home without attempting this", an email wouldn't be sent, as compared to a string of, "We searched, but couldn't find the cache." If I got a string of DNFs like the last example, I wouldn't wait for a NM or an email, I would have gone and checked the cache, and either confirmed the cache was still okay, or replaced it if it were missing. THEN done an OM.

The reviewer does not send the email (which is how it sounds in your post), it is automatically generated by CHS. The Reviewer only becomes involved when there is no response to the email by the CO. And, if the CO needs to check the cache but cannot do it right away all they need do is post a WN for the reviewer's benefit. The CO should keep the reviewer up to date on situation.

Personally, I would feel a bit embarrassed if one of my caches got to a point of being pinged but I would never feel threatened.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, colleda said:

The reviewer does not send the email (which is how it sounds in your post), it is automatically generated by CHS. The Reviewer only becomes involved when there is no response to the email by the CO. And, if the CO needs to check the cache but cannot do it right away all they need do is post a WN for the reviewer's benefit. The CO should keep the reviewer up to date on situation.

Personally, I would feel a bit embarrassed if one of my caches got to a point of being pinged but I would never feel threatened.

I also wrote, "Who was it contacted you? Was it a local reviewer, or HQ?", so I didn't presume the reviewer sent it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

There have been a few similar ones posted on the forums since then, mostly brand new caches that haven't had time to get many finds, but I haven't seen anything quite like that recently so maybe the CHS has been tweaked to be a bit more forgiving to younglings.

 

This ^

 

It was 4 years ago, when the CHS score was a new thing. You haven't had a CHS email since.

 

Most COs who have come to the forums to complain about CHS have had legitimate pings--like the example in this discussion where it turned out the cache that had been missing for 4 years. 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, an armchair OM is too much against the grain for me to ever consider doing it. I'm even reluctant to post an OM after a routine visit unless I've actually fixed something that was broken, as I often visit them a lot more often than they're found. If I got a CHS ping on a cache I couldn't safely check on in the allowed time and had to make a choice between an armchair OM and archival, I'd choose archival. For me, caching (both seeking and hiding) is a fun pastime to see out my retirement years, and if keeping a hide going means battling the system beyond the point where it stops being fun, I'll just concede defeat and hit Archive.

 

Before you decide to archive some of your caches, please consider the following:

 

Regarding the CHS ping – The CHS ping is an armchair notice.  The pinger has not looked for the cache, has not been near the GZ, and has not looked at the cache page or downloaded the coordinates.  Like any other armchair action, it should be taken with a grain of salt.  Unlike an NM logged by a cacher, there has been no effort put in by the part of the pinger; therefore, the effort of an armchair OM is an appropriate response.

 

Regarding your routine visits to your cache that you don’t think should be considered as “Maintenance” – Maintenance can also be preventative, so a routine visit or inspection is maintenance.  For example, monthly checking of the oil level in a car engine, checking the tire pressure, and inspecting a filter for dirt accumulation is preventative maintenance. Similarly, so are checking pumps vibration, and checking belts on motor drives for tightness and wear.  These actions are inspections, and often, no action beyond that is necessary, but they are maintenance nonetheless. Therefore, the inspection of a cache by the owner is maintenance, and an OM log is appropriate.

 

 

More generally.

Although the specifics of the CHS are not known, we do know (anecdotally and from a few reviewer posts) that finds have minor positive effects, DNFs have minor negative effects, NM and NA have large negative effects, and OM has large positive effects.  It also appears that the score is based on either limited period of time or a limited number of most recent logs.  The effect of time between finds in uncertain.  

 

While it would be nice to have the knowledge of the CHS of a particular cache, there is very little that a CO can do about it.  And, in general, the CHS of a cache where the CO is attentive is unlikely to fall below the ping threshold.  But, DNFs happen.  Considering that the DNF rate for cachers is around 10% (per other threads on the subject), the overall DNF rate on a cache should be about the same, and strings of several consecutive DNFs are very unlikely.  For my own part, I consider my caches easy to find, and my instinct for a DNF is that the cache is missing, so I’ll go out and check the cache and then log a note to that effect.  One cache had a several DNFs over a several months, but each was just because the cacher couldn’t find it. After the last DNF, I posted an OM, too.  I don’t know the CHS score, but whatever it was, the OM reversed the DNF effects.

 

Lastly, the CHS is simply an indication that something might be wrong, and I believe the purpose of the CHS is to eliminate caches that have been abandoned by the CO.  In those cases, the CHS ping will go unanswered.  But the CHS ping is based on imperfect knowledge.  Neither the CO nor GS know the condition of the cache, and that is the dilemma when the false alarm CHS ping occurs.  

 

Joe     

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, colleda said:

The reviewer does not send the email (which is how it sounds in your post), it is automatically generated by CHS. The Reviewer only becomes involved when there is no response to the email by the CO. And, if the CO needs to check the cache but cannot do it right away all they need do is post a WN for the reviewer's benefit. The CO should keep the reviewer up to date on situation.

Personally, I would feel a bit embarrassed if one of my caches got to a point of being pinged but I would never feel threatened.

 

We know the CHS system isn't perfect so I have to ask, why would you feel embarrassed?

 

I'm still not sure why some feel so threatened by this. While it's not 100% accurate, it can be a helpful tool for COs. As a responsible cache owner, I will look at the situation closely and take whatever action I feel is needed if and when a ping comes my way.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

I'm still not sure why some feel so threatened by this.

Because the options presented are for the CO to visit the cache location soon (regardless of the current situation) or to archive the cache.

 

Yes, those of us in the forums know that an armchair OM log can take care of it, but the CHS "friendly email" doesn't suggest that as an option, and not all COs are comfortable with that option anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Joe_L said:

Regarding your routine visits to your cache that you don’t think should be considered as “Maintenance” – Maintenance can also be preventative, so a routine visit or inspection is maintenance.  For example, monthly checking of the oil level in a car engine, checking the tire pressure, and inspecting a filter for dirt accumulation is preventative maintenance. Similarly, so are checking pumps vibration, and checking belts on motor drives for tightness and wear.  These actions are inspections, and often, no action beyond that is necessary, but they are maintenance nonetheless. Therefore, the inspection of a cache by the owner is maintenance, and an OM log is appropriate.

 

I'm trying to avoid situations like this where my OMs completely dominate the cache page and aren't really contributing anything new:

 

Oms.jpg.65874a52ad50843f5f9e9b70d93ee871.jpg

 

PQs are limited to the most recent 7 logs and, for someone scratching their head in the field and scrolling through the logs on their GPSr hoping for a nudge, a heap of BFJ's OMs saying he cleared away the leaf litter isn't going to help.

 

3 hours ago, Joe_L said:

Considering that the DNF rate for cachers is around 10% (per other threads on the subject), the overall DNF rate on a cache should be about the same, and strings of several consecutive DNFs are very unlikely.  For my own part, I consider my caches easy to find, and my instinct for a DNF is that the cache is missing, so I’ll go out and check the cache and then log a note to that effect.

 

The overall DNF rate on a cache would the the same 10% if all caches were the same, but they're not. Some are very easy to find and will rarely if ever get a DNF (until a Blind Freddy like me comes along), while some are devilishly tricky and will get frequent DNFs. Some of that can be reflected in the D rating, but a lot of the DNFs I get on my hides aren't related to how well camouflaged the container is, like the DNF in the screenshot above where there's no mobile data access in the area and the app didn't load the required images. I've had well over 60 DNFs across all my hides but only two have been the result of a cache problem (and both of those were on the same cache which I've since archived).

 

I have one cache, a 2/3.5 traditional hidden in 2014, which has 13 DNFs from 63 finds, including the two most recent attempts. It really shouldn't be that difficult, as the cache is sitting in plain sight with no camo rocks or anything covering it, but it's a novelty container that people probably aren't expecting to see (although if they read the previous logs they'd have a pretty good idea) so they look at it without seeing it then wander off searching in greater and greater circles until they finally give up and log a DNF. Those who've come back for a second attempt and made the find have said they can't believe they missed it the first time. Then there are those cachers who never read the description and so miss out on all the subtle hints in there. That cache has never gone missing and, as of yesterday, was still snug in its dark corner looking out at those DNFers with its beady little eyes:

 

DSC_0397.jpg.2026013575d71d54af93bf07f77ace3e.jpg

 

I'm more inclined to check on that one after a find than a DNF as it's often not put back properly and last year one of the finders used it as a urinal. Maybe on caches like that, finds should have a negative CHS score too :unsure:.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

PQs are limited to the most recent 7 logs and, for someone scratching their head in the field and scrolling through the logs on their GPSr hoping for a nudge, a heap of BFJ's OMs saying he cleared away the leaf litter isn't going to help.

 

 

Post your OM, then a bit later, edit the OM to change the posted date to a date older than the published date. Include the actual visit date in the text of your edited log. This way, you have your note of when you checked the cache/OM, and the OM log is moved back to prior to any searcher's logs.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

Most COs who have come to the forums to complain about CHS have had legitimate pings--like the example in this discussion where it turned out the cache that had been missing for 4 years. 

 

These are the logs in the cache that started this thread:

 

FalsePositive.jpg.2541d63ee435462f36295be119c57536.jpg

 

It doesn't look like it was missing for four years, or missing when those two cachers found it in November, or missing when the latest DNFer could see it but couldn't reach it with their wobbly TOTT, or even missing when the CO checked on it after the CHS ping.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm trying to avoid situations like this where my OMs completely dominate the cache page and aren't really contributing anything new:

I sometimes think this with our caches.... if I do a cruise by, and there has been no probs lately, and an OM log in the past 12 months, I just note when it was checked in my personal cache notes, then at least I have a record of when I was there....

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, lee737 said:

I sometimes think this with our caches.... if I do a cruise by, and there has been no probs lately, and an OM log in the past 12 months, I just note when it was checked in my personal cache notes, then at least I have a record of when I was there....

 

Yes, I have a Word document listing all my caches and the date of my last visit, which I keep sorted with the most recently visited ones at the top. Whenever I've got some free time and feel like stretching my legs on a long hike, I'll look at the cache at the bottom of the list and pay it a visit, then it gets moved to the top.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

The new cache owner dashboard has superseded my old email list for cache checks..... its good for this....

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, colleda said:

Personally, I would feel a bit embarrassed if one of my caches got to a point of being pinged but I would never feel threatened.

 

A cache doesn't have to "get to the point of being pinged", even the best maintained cache can get pinged at any time if its pattern of logs doesn't gel with the programmers' idea of what a cache of that type and D/T rating should get. DNFs aren't evenly spaced, instead they often come in batches, particularly if searchers see the last log was a DNF so they don't search as thoroughly as they would have if the last log was a find. DNFs often beget DNFs even if there's nothing wrong with the cache.

 

It makes my blood boil when I repeatedly see comments in the forums to the effect that COs who fulfil their obligations will never get a CHS ping because there are plenty of examples of false positive pings received by diligent COs. The CHS has never been to GZ and knows nothing about the cache or its environment, all it's doing is counting logs and making some statistical inferences about the state of the cache. No matter how good it is at doing what it's doing, some bad caches will always be missed and some good caches will always be caught in the net. That's why I keep saying there needs to be a proper fourth option to allow those diligent COs who are unwilling to log an armchair OM to say "you got it wrong, the cache is fine."

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Here's a case of 'where the heck is the CHS when you need it'.... answer - CO keeps dropping armchair OMs..... the DNFs going back to June, and a second OM are over the page....

 

CHS-where-are-you.jpg

Edited by lee737
  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Welllll, one thing about this thread:

 

         I seems to have revealed that some folks are 'jacked up" 

 

Polarizing Health Score Potential: 10 out of 10

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Here's a case of 'where the heck is the CHS when you need it'.... answer - CO keeps dropping armchair OMs..... the DNFs going back to June, and a second OM are over the page...

 

Yeah, it kind of defeats the whole purpose, particularly as OM is the default owner log that gets posted even if you click on the Disable or Archive link from the Admin Tools box on the cache page. If they really want to have default logs for owners, it should be Archive.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, niraD said:

Because the options presented are for the CO to visit the cache location soon (regardless of the current situation) or to archive the cache.

 

Yes, those of us in the forums know that an armchair OM log can take care of it, but the CHS "friendly email" doesn't suggest that as an option, and not all COs are comfortable with that option anyway.

 

Questions,,, What is "soon"? Is it a few days, weeks, months? If the CO does nothing, is the cache automatically archived without involvement of a reviewer? I may be wrong but I don't think that's how the process works. I'm fairly certain a reviewer will get involved and if so, more options will avail themselves.

 

The 2nd option to simply archive the cache goes against geocaching cache in, trash out etiquette that Groundspeak has always promoted. It's hard to believe it would be suggested to archive but not pick up what might be left of a cache. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

The 2nd option to simply archive the cache goes against geocaching cache in, trash out etiquette that Groundspeak has always promoted. It's hard to believe it would be suggested to archive but not pick up what might be left of a cache. 

 

The CHS is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the cache is missing so there's nothing to retrieve :).

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The CHS is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the cache is missing so there's nothing to retrieve :).

 

In all cases? I thought the CHS was set up to also to let owners know that there may be other problems with the cache besides it just being missing. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Mudfrog said:

 

In all cases? I thought the CHS was set up to also to let owners know that there may be other problems with the cache besides it just being missing. 

 

According to the Help Centre, it also treats NMs and NAs as negative scores, but for NMs other than a missing cache there are usually ongoing finds being logged, which count as positive scores, so unless there are multiple NMs keeping pace with the finds it probably won't reach the threshold. I gather the reviewers have other tools to monitor ignored NMs. Of NAs go straight to the reviewers anyway so I don't understand why the CHS bothers with them.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, lee737 said:

Here's a case of 'where the heck is the CHS when you need it'.... answer - CO keeps dropping armchair OMs..... the DNFs going back to June, and a second OM are over the page....

 

CHS-where-are-you.jpg

If the non-maintenance goes back a long way and if NMs are being ignored, the solution there is to make another NA immediately after the non-maintenance entry. I did that once when after my NM and then later a NA, following a VERY long list of DNFs, the CO did an OM. "I think it is still there". I suggested she needed to actuality check, and she called me a few names :rolleyes:. Anyway, after another very long list of DNFs (maybe another 15) the reviewer finally came in and archived the cache.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I've added another NA, with maintenance-log advice.... funny, they've been caching for 14 years, they still obviously don't know how to manage a cache properly.... :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Questions,,, What is "soon"? Is it a few days, weeks, months? If the CO does nothing, is the cache automatically archived without involvement of a reviewer?

The "friendly email" doesn't say. It just says visit, TD until you can visit, or archive.

 

10 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

I may be wrong but I don't think that's how the process works. I'm fairly certain a reviewer will get involved and if so, more options will avail themselves.

I'm fairly certain a volunteer reviewer will get involved before the cache is forcibly archived too. But the "friendly email" doesn't say anything about that. It says only visit, TD until you can visit, or archive.

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2021 at 3:17 AM, lee737 said:

I've added another NA, with maintenance-log advice.... funny, they've been caching for 14 years, they still obviously don't know how to manage a cache properly.... :rolleyes:

14 years but only 112 finds. That may be why they don't seem to know much.

  • Upvote 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...