Jump to content

CHS, Health, Reviewer Attention


BG2015

Recommended Posts

Looking for someone to explain this to me.  I was FTF on a cache that is in a remote area and requires quite a bit of hike.  Needless to say, the area nor the cache is visited very often.

 

The cache was found only a single time in late 2016.  The next attempt on a find wasn't until late 2018, a full two years later and the attempt was made in the winter, in Colorado.  In the (incorrect) DNF log, the cacher clearly stated that they could not make it to GZ due to all the snow.  Four years later, the next log that pops up is a reviewer note that cache may need attention (again, note comes up in the winter in Colorado).  I called out the reviewer about this being a remote, long hike cache, previous DNFer didn't even make it to GZ, maintenance would not be likely in the winter, why is this being flagged, etc.

 

Six months later, the only response I get is "There are many factors that bring a cache to HQs attention, a single DNF does not suffice".

 

Well, in the 6-1/2 years since placement, only one cacher has made it to GZ.  Why would this come to HQs attention?  Do they not like lonely caches?  Are they cluttering the board too much?  What is the algorithm that would cause this nonsense?  50% DNF rate?

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

The Cache Health Score algorithm can't distinguish between two DNF logs based on content.  It only looks at log types, dates, and D/T ratings to determine the score.  Once the score falls below a defined threshold, the notification email is sent automatically.  If there's no follow-up, then the cache goes into a queue for attention by a Reviewer.  A Reviewer's human eyes and brain can distinguish between "DNF- had to turn back due to all the snow" and "DNF- looked for a half hour and it's pretty obvious that this section of woods has been clear-cut."  On the flip side, a Reviewer can also see a mistaken "found it" log where the log text clearly says that the geocacher couldn't find the cache and didn't sign the log.  Reviewers have the discretion to override the results of the algorithm.  The Reviewer may also know information about the cache owner that they wouldn't share with a third party, like you as the FTF finder.

 

@BG2015, is the cache you're writing about still active, or was it archived?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
20 hours ago, Keystone said:

@BG2015, is the cache you're writing about still active, or was it archived?

 

As the OP hasn't returned to the discussion, I answered my own question by locating the cache in question.  It remains active, and I see that the Reviewer is giving it a light touch.  He hasn't disabled the cache, likely in part due to its remote nature and the other circumstances of the log history.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Yes, I've been away a few days, not behind the computer.  I do see that the reviewer is giving it a light touch but still don't understand how there is a gap of four years before it comes to the attention of a reviewer.  Just trying to see behind the curtain on what would cause this.  Does the CO get a personal email or how do they see that a reviewer note has been posted?

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, BG2015 said:

Yes, I've been away a few days, not behind the computer.  I do see that the reviewer is giving it a light touch but still don't understand how there is a gap of four years before it comes to the attention of a reviewer.  Just trying to see behind the curtain on what would cause this.  Does the CO get a personal email or how do they see that a reviewer note has been posted?

 

It took more than 2.5 years for the Cache Health Score for this cache to degrade below the threshold, taking into account the D/T rating and the number of DNF logs (one).  At that time, the CHS algorithm triggered an automatic email to the cache owner, and the cache would appear on the CO's cache owner dashboard as possibly needing attention.  The reviewer, taking the relevant factors into account, did not post a note to the page for another 1.5 years.  The CO would receive notice of Reviewer Notes to their account's email address, just like for all other logs.

 

If this had been a 1.5/1.5 cache in an urban area, the entire process would have taken just a few months and would typically lead to the cache page being archived in the absence of any response from the cache owner.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...