The Cache Health Score (CHS) Algorithm is too strict

[+brendan714]

I have to admit that I'm feeling frustrated by the Geocaching HQ CHS algorithm and its effect on backcountry geocaches.  There have been several caches in the past couple years that have been hit in my area, including:

 

https://coord.info/GC2CRBK

The 2 DNF logs should not be grounds for disabling and eventual archival - especially when you read that the DNFers did not even make it to GZ to conduct an actual search.  Some local geocachers posted notes on the page which thankfully convinced the reviewer to reverse their decision.  I am surprised that the reviewer did not review the DNF logs prior to disabling - surely it would have been archived had the community not noticed. 

 

https://coord.info/GC41WK2

A very difficult hide near the top of a mountain - I found this cache and I am certain it will still be there based on how and where it was hidden.  Sadly, despite the 4.5* difficulty rating, the cache was archived after being DNFed by only 2 separate groups.  Also despite the fact it took 6 years for the first (and only) find, with the cache being DNFed by 4 different groups along the way.  

 

https://coord.info/GC7ABF7

The latest one from this week.  One DNF in the past year was enough to get this one flagged by the CHS and disabled by the reviewer.  Yes, the CO appears to be inactive or at least intermittently active - but one DNF alone should not be enough to trigger the CHS... or the reviewer to disable, IMO. 

 

---

 

I once again ask Geocaching HQ and the reviewers to give a little bit more leniency to backcountry geocaches vs urban hides.  Caches in the backwoods are what made this hobby what it is today.  And yet, the cases above are examples of interesting hides off the beaten track (which may all still be in place!) that got placed on the chopping block because of the CHS algorithm.  One got saved thanks to locals voicing up, one got chopped, and now another is about to get chopped.  

 

An urban cache and a backcountry cache cannot be treated the same. At the very least, I ask the reviewers to very carefully review the DNFs - some of these lonely caches may span years between finds.  If nothing else, a few extra DNFs on the cache ensures that it is actually gone.  I see no benefit in archiving a backcountry cache if there's a chance it may still be there.  Geotrash in the woods is not a great look for the sustainability aspects of this hobby. 

[+thebruce0]

Well, considering it's reviewers who took action, it's not the CHS that's of issue here which only provides reviewers flags for possible checking, it's your opinion of the judgment of the reviewers' call. Keep in mind, we don't know any further communications or issues happening behind the scenes that can affect a reviewer's judgment, especially by private communications.  So on those grounds, here are my thoughts:

 

1. The reviewer was convinced by community feedback to reverse their judgment and the cache was saved from archival. Yay! The system can work.

 

2. Nov 2012 publish. [+3y] Sep 2015 owner checkup.  [+3y] Aug 2018 FTF. 3 DNFs (2 attempts) [+4y] until Dec 2022 reviewer disable. No owner check or response in 30 days. Reviewer  archives.

 

3. "Yes, the CO appears to be inactive or at least intermittently active" - that's enough to justify disabling on any concern for many reviewers. The CO should be responsive and at least ping the cache or reviewer with the intent to keep it alive.

 

Once again, 30 days is really no excuse for a cache owner to not provide any response to a reviewer disable log. Even so, reviewers can be convinced to not archive; they are human, but also following reviewer guidelines and have no obligation to be lenient on non-responsive owners...

 

It's sad when great caches get archived from inactivity, but really the only one to blame there if the reviewer isn't convinced otherwise is the non-responsive cache owner.

[+brendan714]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Well, considering it's reviewers who took action, it's not the CHS that's of issue here which only provides reviewers flags for possible checking, it's your opinion of the judgment of the reviewers' call.

 

I suppose you're right.  I just fail to see the benefit of archiving a cache that is likely still there - regardless of whether the owner is active or not.  This is especially true in backcountry locations which may be in regulated government parks, etc. 

 

What would the park managers think if they found out geotrash was left behind?  It's not a good look for geocaching, I can tell you that for sure. 

 

I certainly accept that reviewers are human and are volunteers.  But as part of the "job", I would expect a review of the location and latest logs to confirm the cache is actually a candidate for archival.  I think most people would agree that 1 or 2 DNFs should not be enough for permanent archival of a more remote cache placed in a government park (unless of course there is a very clear issue or the cache is proven gone - cases which don't apply to my above examples). 

 

1) The CHS should not be alerting reviewers after only 1 or 2 DNFs.

2) The reviewers should not be taking action after only 1 or 2 DNFs, especially when the DNFs are questionable and especially not in backcountry/remote areas in regulated parks. 

 

I'm not asking for perfection, but I think there's room for improvement here.

[+pipatah]

On the other hand, there are also cases in which the cache is most likely no longer on site, but the algorithm does not intervene. Example: https://coord.info/GC1YVM9.

A not so easy mystery, but a standard hiding place. CHS apparently assumes with a D4 mystery that the difficulty relates to the search on site, so even after 5 DNF and no find within 2 1/2 years, nothing happens.

Edited October 27, 2023 by pipatah

[+thebruce0]

59 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

I just fail to see the benefit of archiving a cache that is likely still there - regardless of whether the owner is active or not.

It's the age-old question...

 

59 minutes ago, brendan714 said:

What would the park managers think if they found out geotrash was left behind?

That would be an issue regardless of whether the listing was archived or not, if the owner is non-responsive. Better to not have any connection back to gc, ya?

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

I think most people would agree that 1 or 2 DNFs should not be enough for permanent archival of a more remote cache placed in a government park

And #1 is a great example of a reviewer changing their mind because they were convinced otherwise.

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

1) The CHS should not be alerting reviewers after only 1 or 2 DNFs.

As we're often reminded, in those cases that people raise in the forum, there's almost certainly something else amiss about the situation that's not readily apparent to us.

 

1 hour ago, brendan714 said:

2) The reviewers should not be taking action after only 1 or 2 DNFs

Well, that's for them to decide, ya?  Or appeals

 

[+brendan714]

On 10/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

It's the age-old question...

Since when is it an age-old question to archive caches potentially in good shape?  Whether or not they have an active owner?

 

On 10/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

That would be an issue regardless of whether the listing was archived or not, if the owner is non-responsive. Better to not have any connection back to gc, ya?

Disagree, there are plenty of caches in Provincial Parks near me that have inactive owners.  If the cache is still there in good shape, what's the worry? 

 

On 10/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

And #1 is a great example of a reviewer changing their mind because they were convinced otherwise.

My argument is that this shouldn't be happening in the first place.  Re #1: had nobody piped up, a cache very likely still in good shape would have been archived in a Provincial Park. 

And that's not the first time a similar occurrence like this has happened... reviewers should be especially careful with cache in Alberta Provincial Parks because there's currently a moratorium on new cache hides in this particular area (Kananaskis).  Meaning if a cache is archived, it's gone forever. 

 

On 10/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

As we're often reminded, in those cases that people raise in the forum, there's almost certainly something else amiss about the situation that's not readily apparent to us.

I very much doubt that in the most recent case.  The reviewer explicitly says "This cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention as it has not been found for a long time."

Since when is 1 year with 1 DNF considered "a long time"?  Why is the CHS even flagging that?

 

On 10/27/2023 at 12:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

Well, that's for them to decide, ya?  Or appeals

Are there seriously people in the geocaching community who think a cache (assuming no obvious issues) should be put up on the archival chopping block after only 1 or 2 DNFs?  Anybody who has actually played the game should understand that a cache can very VERY easily be DNFed even by experienced geocachers once or twice.  5 or 6 DNFs by experienced cachers?  Now that sounds a little more serious to me. 

[+barefootjeff]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:25 AM, thebruce0 said:

As we're often reminded, in those cases that people raise in the forum, there's almost certainly something else amiss about the situation that's not readily apparent to us.

 

Or sometimes the system just gets it wrong. Some years back, I got a CHS ping on a 6-week-old 2/5 multi with one find and one DNF. There was nothing amiss behind the scenes and the cache was fine, the only explanation offered was that it hadn't had enough finds, but around here anything that's not a roadside micro won't get many finds. My most recent cache, a 1.5/4 traditional published 3 weeks ago, has only had one find and that was a week after publication. FTF races on non-urban caches here are measured in weeks or months, not minutes. I doubt that cache will ever get more than a small handful of finds, so it won't take many DNFs to trigger a CHS violation.

 

The CHS no doubt works well on urban micros, which make up the bulk of the world's caches, but on anything remote that's rarely attempted, the find/DNF statistical model on which it's based falls over, particularly when the bulk of DNF logs on such caches are due to factors other than a potentially missing cache.

 

This is the boiler-plate note our reviewer posts on a cache when it gets a CHS ping:

 

 

Of course I don't know whether this is always posted in the case of a CHS ping that hasn't had an immediate response, or whether the reviewer is a bit more selective, but from that point on it goes from being a potential maintenance issue to an unresponsive CO and, if the CO is no longer active, archival is pretty much inevitable regardless of the state of the cache. Maybe that's okay in places where there are plenty of active COs who'll quickly plug the hole on the map with a new cache, but in more remote areas it will almost certainly just result in more empty space and fewer caches like these for new players and visitors to find. Ultimately, all that will be left will be urban micros.

[+garretslarrity]

I've been thinking about this too lately. It seems to me that the CHS assigns too much penalty to DNFs and not enough to Need Maintenance logs. Not sure how much regional variation there is, but at least in my area (Southern California) I see many caches get disabled after just 2 DNFs, whereas caches that keep collecting multiple NM logs over years get ignored by the reviewers as long as they keep getting finds. This seems backwards to me, as I think it's better for the game to have some difficult caches (even if a handful *might* not be there) than to have caches that are there but are nothing more than a disintegrating piece of plastic.

  

On 10/27/2023 at 9:41 AM, brendan714 said:

https://coord.info/GC2CRBKThe 2 DNF logs should not be grounds for disabling and eventual archival - especially when you read that the DNFers did not even make it to GZ to conduct an actual search.  Some local geocachers posted notes on the page which thankfully convinced the reviewer to reverse their decision.  I am surprised that the reviewer did not review the DNF logs prior to disabling - surely it would have been archived had the community not noticed. 

 

Upsetting to see that one got disabled in the first place. As others have noted, the CHS algorithm should just be for flagging, and at the very, very least reviewers need to read the DNF logs before deciding if it makes sense to disable.

 

  

On 10/27/2023 at 9:41 AM, brendan714 said:

Geotrash in the woods is not a great look for the sustainability aspects of this hobby. 

 

Yep. And all the more reason to clean up caches that are not maintained and indistinguishable from trash.

[+barefootjeff]

20 minutes ago, garretslarrity said:

And all the more reason to clean up caches that are not maintained and indistinguishable from trash.

 

Around here at least, most remote caches tend to be larger sturdy containers, like ammo cans for example, that don't need constant maintenance to prevent them becoming indistinguishable from trash. This 5/5 traditional that our group visited yesterday was hidden in 2006 and the only logged maintenance the owner has done was in 2007 when they replaced the original plastic pot with an ammo can. This is what we found yesterday:

 

 

It's placed inside a crack some 15 metres down a vertical cliff. In spite of being unmaintained for 16 years, everything is still in pretty much pristine condition, including the logbook:

 

 

With only thirty-two finds, including yesterday's, it's not going to need replacement for at least a few more decades. The two DNFs it's had were from people who baulked at climbing down to it, either from lack of gear or strong winds, so hardly relevant when trying to determine whether the cache might be missing, indeed neither the find rate nor the DNF rate is statistically significant enough to determine anything about the health of the cache. For caches like these, whether the owner is active or not is immaterial, at least until such time as there actually is a problem reported by someone at GZ.

[+garretslarrity]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Around here at least, most remote caches tend to be larger sturdy containers, like ammo cans for example, that don't need constant maintenance to prevent them becoming indistinguishable from trash. This 5/5 traditional that our group visited yesterday was hidden in 2006 and the only logged maintenance the owner has done was in 2007 when they replaced the original plastic pot with an ammo can. This is what we found yesterday:

 

 

It's placed inside a crack some 15 metres down a vertical cliff. In spite of being unmaintained for 16 years, everything is still in pretty much pristine condition, including the logbook:

 

 

With only thirty-two finds, including yesterday's, it's not going to need replacement for at least a few more decades. The two DNFs it's had were from people who baulked at climbing down to it, either from lack of gear or strong winds, so hardly relevant when trying to determine whether the cache might be missing, indeed neither the find rate nor the DNF rate is statistically significant enough to determine anything about the health of the cache. For caches like these, whether the owner is active or not is immaterial, at least until such time as there actually is a problem reported by someone at GZ.

Now that's what I like to see! I have actually have a series of hides myself which are all ammo cans in remote places. The whole point of them is that they're designed to last well over 25 years without needing any maintenance. But due to their remoteness or difficulty of the hike, many of them will likely average less than 1 find per year. Indeed I'd be upset if the CHS score flags one of those if they get just 1 DNF because of its low find rate and lack (unneeded) owner maintenance. Hence why I think the Needs Maintenance log should play a larger role in the algorithm. 

[+JL_HSTRE]

15 hours ago, brendan714 said:

Are there seriously people in the geocaching community who think a cache (assuming no obvious issues) should be put up on the archival chopping block after only 1 or 2 DNFs?  Anybody who has actually played the game should understand that a cache can very VERY easily be DNFed even by experienced geocachers once or twice.  5 or 6 DNFs by experienced cachers?  Now that sounds a little more serious to me. 

 

Depends on the cache and the seekers. Also helps if the cache is rated accurately.

 

Part of the problem is that after a couple DNFs the willingness of cachers to attempt the cache goes down significantly. After awhile it can sometimes attract Lonely Cache seekers willing to take a long shot. Otherwise it tends to linger in limbo.

 

I know I make frequent use of the default GSAK filter "last 2 logs are DNFs" to exclude caches.

[+baer2006]

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I know I make frequent use of the default GSAK filter "last 2 logs are DNFs" to exclude caches.

I would never auto-exclude a cache just because the last two logs are DNF. Only if a cache needs a non-trivial walk (> 30 minutes) and I'd go there just because of the cache (i.e. the walk itself is likely dull), I check the last logs beforehand, and refrain from it if a DNF seems likely. Otherwise, I just give it a try. Also, I know that I am "blind" quite often and DNF caches, which are perfectly fine - so I usually don't assume "DNF = Cache is probably missing" .

[+barefootjeff]

38 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

I would never auto-exclude a cache just because the last two logs are DNF. Only if a cache needs a non-trivial walk (> 30 minutes) and I'd go there just because of the cache (i.e. the walk itself is likely dull), I check the last logs beforehand, and refrain from it if a DNF seems likely. Otherwise, I just give it a try. Also, I know that I am "blind" quite often and DNF caches, which are perfectly fine - so I usually don't assume "DNF = Cache is probably missing" .

 

Six years ago, when I was chasing caches with a 2/4 DT rating for a challenge, I noticed a cluster of them, 4 traditionals and an EC, along a 3km stretch of shoreline on the south coast, so I did a day trip down there, using 3 trains and taking 3 hours each way. The only one I found was the EC, the others were DNFs. One of those I just couldn't spot but the other three turned out to be missing and were archived by their owner soon afterwards. Sure, it was a bit disappointing but it was still an enjoyable trip away and I don't regret doing it.

 

For me, most of the enjoyment I get from caching is the journey, with a smiley just the icing on the cake, particularly on a group trip with friends where it really doesn't matter whether I end up with any finds at all. I've found caches that have had multiple preceding DNFs (the best was 12 DNFs spread over two years, though with a couple of OMs from the owner saying they'd checked and it was still there) but I've also added another DNF (and often an NM or NA) to the logs. It's all part of the game and it would lose a lot of its appeal if every cache was a guaranteed quick and easy find.

[+thebruce0]

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

On 10/27/2023 at 2:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

It's the age-old question...

Since when is it an age-old question to archive caches potentially in good shape?  Whether or not they have an active owner?

It's age old because it's been talked about often here in the forums.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

On 10/27/2023 at 2:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

That would be an issue regardless of whether the listing was archived or not, if the owner is non-responsive. Better to not have any connection back to gc, ya?

Disagree, there are plenty of caches in Provincial Parks near me that have inactive owners.  If the cache is still there in good shape, what's the worry? 

Because you said:

On 10/27/2023 at 2:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

What would the park managers think if they found out geotrash was left behind?

Which is what I replied to. That is not an active responsive owner, and the container is being considered geotrash (ie reported, and abandoned), not "in good shape" (in good condition, being found, zero issues or reports).

 

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

My argument is that this shouldn't be happening in the first place.  Re #1: had nobody piped up, a cache very likely still in good shape would have been archived in a Provincial Park. 

If the reviewer felt it needed archival and the owner was non-responsive. Owners who list on this service agree to responsibilities or the listing will be archived. It is NOT any fault but the owner's if their cache is archived because they are non-responsive.  If it hurts the community, it is only the owner's fault for being non-responsive.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

Meaning if a cache is archived, it's gone forever. 

Not if it's still there. If the owner is non-responsive, and the listing is archived, people can still go and find it. Or is it about the active listing statistics and numbers people are concerned about?

 

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

On 10/27/2023 at 2:25 PM, thebruce0 said:

As we're often reminded, in those cases that people raise in the forum, there's almost certainly something else amiss about the situation that's not readily apparent to us.

I very much doubt that in the most recent case.  The reviewer explicitly says "This cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention as it has not been found for a long time."

Since when is 1 year with 1 DNF considered "a long time"?  Why is the CHS even flagging that?

Because algorithm. No one believes the algorithm is "perfect" and undoubtedly it's constantly being adjusted. That's why reviewers do the archiving if they feel the listing warrants archiving. Community - but primarily the cache owner - can convince them otherwise. CHS can go fly a kite. Focus on the reviewer doing the archiving.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 4:37 PM, brendan714 said:

Are there seriously people in the geocaching community who think a cache (assuming no obvious issues) should be put up on the archival chopping block after only 1 or 2 DNFs?  Anybody who has actually played the game should understand that a cache can very VERY easily be DNFed even by experienced geocachers once or twice.  5 or 6 DNFs by experienced cachers?  Now that sounds a little more serious to me. 

Strawman. No one here said that 1 or 2 DNFs warrants archiving.

"Assuming no obvious issues" is the fallacious assumptions. Reviewers know if there are other issues we do not know about, and they are the arbiters of whether something IS an issue, even if we think it's not. If they can be shown wrong, they can be convinced otherwise - by the owner, by community, or by HQ themselves.

Edited October 30, 2023 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

On 10/28/2023 at 7:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

it won't take many DNFs to trigger a CHS violation.

What's a CHS "violation"?

(that's rhetorical to make a point)

There's no "violation". There's a flag that reviewers receive that there may be an issue worth looking at. There's an email the owner receives that there may be an issue and it should be checked. "Violation" is way too strong a word for what's happening. And this conversation consistently gets raised ad nauseum in the forums. This whole process has been discussed so many times. Some people don't like the CHS system; that's fine. The CHS does nothing. Reviewers and HQ do everything.

 

On 10/28/2023 at 7:17 PM, barefootjeff said:

FTF races on non-urban caches here are measured in weeks or months, not minutes.

And who knows, it could very well be that the algorithm measures your region to the same average standard as many other regions, depending on how their statistics pan out. We know your region is quite an exception for many any 'norm' in the geocaching community, mainly by your regular anecdotal posts explaining your experiences. So who knows, maybe they can adjust the algorithm to be more lenient in your region (knock on wood).  Complain or send feedback to HQ if you feel the CHS algorithm doesn't fairly consider your region's relative lack of geocaching activity...

 

On 10/28/2023 at 7:44 PM, garretslarrity said:

It seems to me that the CHS assigns too much penalty to DNFs and not enough to Need Maintenance logs. Not sure how much regional variation there is, but at least in my area (Southern California) I see many caches get disabled after just 2 DNFs, whereas caches that keep collecting multiple NM logs over years get ignored by the reviewers as long as they keep getting finds.

Just to point out again - the CHS doesn't do the disabling - reviewers do.  So in those cases, for whatever reason, the reviewers felt that the caches with DNFs warranted owner checkups, but the ones with multiple NMs didn't (or they are just not being active against them for whatever other reasons).

We have similar observations here in Ontario. In more active areas of the province, caches may see reviewer action taken for seemingly simple causes, while more remote caches visited a handful of times a year with DNFs or NM still remain untouched.

 

One might say there's no rhyme or reason, but ultimately it's the reviewers that should be talked to, to see if they'll enlighten you as to their reasons for tending to one listing and not to another.

 

 

On 10/28/2023 at 7:44 PM, garretslarrity said:

As others have noted, the CHS algorithm should just be for flagging, and at the very, very least reviewers need to read the DNF logs before deciding if it makes sense to disable.

 

Exactly. And, the CHS is just for flagging.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

16 hours ago, baer2006 said:

On 10/29/2023 at 7:57 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

I know I make frequent use of the default GSAK filter "last 2 logs are DNFs" to exclude caches.

I would never auto-exclude a cache just because the last two logs are DNF. Only if a cache needs a non-trivial walk (> 30 minutes) and I'd go there just because of the cache (i.e. the walk itself is likely dull), I check the last logs beforehand, and refrain from it if a DNF seems likely. Otherwise, I just give it a try. Also, I know that I am "blind" quite often and DNF caches, which are perfectly fine - so I usually don't assume "DNF = Cache is probably missing" .

 

Likewise, I'd never auto-exclude merely on 2 DNFs; I'd rather read the reasons. Quite often those two are low-finders, new cachers. But if they're experienced cachers, I'd likely skip the cache. That said, if I'm just browsing in Cachly, say, and I see 2 red dots as the latest on a listing, I'm not likely to make that cache a priority if I'm just out for a handful of finds and some fresh air.

So, if I'm on a big trip and there's a cache I want but it's got 2 red dots, I'm almost certainly not going to add it to my itinerary, depending on how badly I wanted it (I might otherwise attempt to contact the owner). But, if I did just want a nice hike and fresh air, I may decide to make the effort and take a long hike risking a potential DNF given 2 red dots, but at least give the cache a shot and maybe save the cache owner a maintenance trip if I can confirm it IS there; and if not I'd very clearly explain my reasoning and experience attaining that DNF to help the owner better decide if it's worth the maintenance trip (yet).

Each of those examples I have experienced in my caching career.

 

Ontario reviewers wouldn't disable a remote cache with 2 DNFs merely for their existence if they seemed like inexperienced cachers, for example - even if the CHS happened to flag it for possibly needing attention.

 

Reviewers make the call to disable, not the CHS. Reviewers can be wrong, or convinced against archival, regardless of the CHS report. The CHS algorithm is ever-evolving and is never claimed to be perfect.

Edited October 30, 2023 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's no "violation". There's a flag

Maybe it's just my experience playing (American) football in school, but to me, a "flag" and a "violation" and a "penalty" are all pretty synonymous.

 

But in an attempt to clarify the discussion, the disagreement is over caches with inactive owners, but that are otherwise in viable condition. Some focus on the fact that the CO is inactive, and some focus on the fact that the cache is otherwise viable.

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, niraD said:

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There's no "violation". There's a flag

Maybe it's just my experience playing (American) football in school, but to me, a "flag" and a "violation" and a "penalty" are all pretty synonymous.

Well, this ain't (American) football

In practicality in this context the terms may be synonymous (a listing is flagged for violating a programmatically limiting rule), but by inference one is FAR more negative even though the resulting outcomes are identical.

ETA: A violation, especially in (American) football, comes with a consequence to the team (even if it's 1 of 3 warnings before a hard consequence). The CHS does not execute consequences; if a reviewer does nothing, the CHS only flags once until it's reset to 'good', and then it can keep flagging as long as it's active and goes below the threshold - and nothing further will ever happen if a reviewer never does a thing.

 

No, CHS in practicality merely flags a listing for attention by the reviewer. After that, it's entirely human judgment.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by thebruce0

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

We know your region is quite an exception for many any 'norm' in the geocaching community, mainly by your regular anecdotal posts explaining your experiences. So who knows, maybe they can adjust the algorithm to be more lenient in your region (knock on wood).  Complain or send feedback to HQ if you feel the CHS algorithm doesn't fairly consider your region's relative lack of geocaching activity...

 

Didn't you recently do a podcast all about a Canadian cache that just got its FTF log 20 years after publication? I'm sure there are lots of caches in Canada, and other parts of the world, that are off the beaten track away from the major cities and don't get many finders.

 

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

No, CHS in practicality merely flags a listing for attention by the reviewer. After that, it's entirely human judgment.

 

All that human (or maybe dog) has to go on is the content of the DNF logs, which is great if those logs have any useful content, but often they don't, like this one I got last February:

 

Did the searcher spend hours looking in every nook and cranny but ultimately walked away empty-handed? Actually, as I found out when I messaged them, they just abandoned the final stage of the multi because they weren't adequately dressed for the off-trail traverse to GZ, which implies nothing about the health of the cache. The previous finds (and OM) on that cache were a year earlier in 2022, so if I was a reviewer and that got flagged, I'd probably err on the side of caution and request an owner check. But as the owner of that cache, given its age and lack of recent finds (it's had three in the last two years), if it got a CHS flag as a result of a couple of DNFs like that, I'd probably just take the easy way out and archive it, leaving it till a nice cool mid-winter's day to venture out, retrieve the almost pristine container and either reuse it in another cache closer to home or consign it to the recycling bin. Whatever the case, it'd just become another empty space on the map, with little likelihood of either me or another cacher putting something new there.

 

Perhaps the loss of one cache like this doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things, but 26 of my 50 active hides have had five or less finds in the last two years. Most of them require a fair bit of effort to visit so, while I'm happy for them to just sit there in the hope that they might get a few more finds in the years ahead, if a CHS flag asked me to do a visit in the middle of a summer heatwave, I'd likely just archive it immediately and go out to retrieve it at a time of my choosing. I wouldn't even wait to see whether the reviewer requested a check or not, because I don't want any of my caches to be amongst those that have been brought to the attention of a reviewer for a perceived lack of maintenance. After all, in terms of its effect, a CHS flag is essentially the same as a RAR log.

 

If that long-unfound Canadian cache had received a couple of content-less DNFs like this during the twenty years before FTF, maybe from searchers who never made it to GZ, should it have been archived if the owner had been inactive or unwilling to do a check in the short time frame allowed? I've seen that happen on a rarely-found but frequently DNFed D5 nano-on-a-locomotive cache when the owner got tired of dealing with repeated CHS flags and just archived it. But maybe caches like these should be archived because, unless it's needed to fill a Jasmer grid or has some other statistical rarity making it worthy of preservation, these days isn't it supposed to be all about refreshing the gameboard with quick and easy smileys and no risk of disappointment?

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Didn't you recently do a podcast all about a Canadian cache that just got its FTF log 20 years after publication? I'm sure there are lots of caches in Canada, and other parts of the world, that are off the beaten track away from the major cities and don't get many finders.

Sure, your point? Not sure how that was addressing my comment.

 

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

All that human (or maybe dog) has to go on is the content of the DNF logs

Not necessarily. Also any interactions behind the scenes we're not privy to, any information they are aware of that we are not, any past events and actions that paint a different picture. Reviewers are not limited to what we are.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

12 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

All that human (or maybe dog) has to go on is the content of the DNF logs

Not necessarily. Also any interactions behind the scenes we're not privy to, any information they are aware of that we are not, any past events and actions that paint a different picture. Reviewers are not limited to what we are.

 

In the example I gave of a DNF log on a rarely found cache that just said "DNF", I don't know what behind the scenes information the reviewer could be privy to that would shed more light on whether the cache is missing, short of messaging the DNFer to ask for more detail and then waiting for any reply. I don't know how much time reviewers spend analysing each cache on their list of CHS flags, but given their workload I wouldn't think it would be much before they just post the boilerplate Please check the cache within the next 2-3 weeks note. In any case, I'd hope the reviewer's decision is based objectively on the cache and its logs rather than any subjective knowledge they might have about the CO.

[+JL_HSTRE]

17 hours ago, niraD said:

Maybe it's just my experience playing (American) football in school, but to me, a "flag" and a "violation" and a "penalty" are all pretty synonymous.

 

In computer terns, "flag" is reference to a binary field (0 or 1, no or yes) that defaults to off, but can change to on under certain conditions.

 

In geocaching, the best example is in GSAK where the column for selecting specific caches within a database is called "User flag set".

 

With the CHS, when the score reaches a certain level it sets a "cache may have a problem" flag.

[+thebruce0]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I don't know what behind the scenes information the reviewer could be privy to

I don't know if you realize what you're saying.

Reviewers absolutely have access to information we don't, historic activity we don't, opinions we may not share, and more. Anything from past interactions with geocachers and owners that will influence their judgment on matters with them - yes, it happens, and it has been admitted - we all know you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list. Lenience is subjective. What we're not "privy to" could be anything from a word in passing in person that clarifies an issue, to notes that have been taken about prior incidents and interactions, to private communications, to simply a matter of their personal opinion. And every call is a judgment call. "No precedent" is there for a reason - one reviewer judgment may differ from another, for whatever reason, and that clause allows them to carry out their given authority without constant bickering and tattle tailing, unless a strict guideline has been broken.

 

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In any case, I'd hope the reviewer's decision is based objectively on the cache and its logs rather than any subjective knowledge they might have about the CO.

One can hope. But if the rule is you must be a responsive cache owner, then they are under no obligation to any geocacher to allow a listing to remain active if the owner is non-responsive.  If they do, they're being lenient if they aren't convinced there's good reason to let it remain active.  The objective standard is based on the reports fed to the reviewer and the agreed-upon owner responsibilities - non-responsive owner means potential archival after the typical period of ensuring the CO can respond or check on the listing, regardless of the what anyone might say about the cache itself.

That's the baseline. Everything else is subjective. Exceptions. Leniency. Human judgment. Or, potentially stricter still if there are further mitigating circumstances that the public may or may not know about (and which reviewers are under no obligation to make known) that could warrant more immediate action.

 

In any case, now we're arguing over reviewer methodology, rather than the CHS.   If the CHS were to flag every cache with one DNF for reviewer attention, we could make an argument that the CHS is too strict; but I would be shocked if reviewers then disabled all those caches merely because the CHS flagged them. Which is another great example as to why the CHS does nothing actively. It's all reviewer judgment.

 

The thread could be more accurately titled "Reviewers are too strict taking action on CHS flags needlessly"

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I don't know if you realize what you're saying.

Reviewers absolutely have access to information we don't, historic activity we don't, opinions we may not share, and more. Anything from past interactions with geocachers and owners that will influence their judgment on matters with them - yes, it happens, and it has been admitted - we all know you don't get on a reviewer's naughty list. Lenience is subjective. What we're not "privy to" could be anything from a word in passing in person that clarifies an issue, to notes that have been taken about prior incidents and interactions, to private communications, to simply a matter of their personal opinion. And every call is a judgment call. "No precedent" is there for a reason - one reviewer judgment may differ from another, for whatever reason, and that clause allows them to carry out their given authority without constant bickering and tattle tailing, unless a strict guideline has been broken.

 

From what I've heard the reviewers here say, they hate having to make subjective calls and are at lengths to keep everything as objective as possible. I even once saw our reviewer put one of his own player account caches on archival warning for being left disabled for too long, so I wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally don't look at who the CO is when processing caches, instead just treating each one in isolation on its merits and looking only at what's on the cache page in front of them, particularly if their review territory overlaps their home region and they'd likely personally know a lot of the COs.

 

By the same token, a reviewer looking at a cache flagged by the CHS wouldn't be across any private correspondence between the DNFers and either the CO or previous finders. For all they know, some of those DNFers might be planning another attempt at the cache when they're better prepared to overcome whatever obstacle got in their way last time, only to have the cache archived out from under them for no reason other than the CO not responding to a CHS flag triggered by their own DNFs. No wonder so many people are reluctant to log DNFs now unless they're absolutely sure the cache is missing. The Missing DNFs HQ are complaining loudly about are likely, at least in part, to be of their own making.

 

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

In any case, now we're arguing over reviewer methodology, rather than the CHS.   If the CHS were to flag every cache with one DNF for reviewer attention, we could make an argument that the CHS is too strict; but I would be shocked if reviewers then disabled all those caches merely because the CHS flagged them. Which is another great example as to why the CHS does nothing actively. It's all reviewer judgment.

 

Well it's not all reviewer judgment. Before the reviewer even gets involved, the owner is sent an email telling them "your geocache might need maintenance" and giving them three options:

• Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
• Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
• Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

The owner might decide that it's too difficult to get out to the cache right now and, well, it doesn't get many finds these days so, even though it's almost certainly not missing, they opt for option 3 and the community loses another cache that has nothing wrong with it. Given the low find rate on most of my higher terrain caches these days, even the newest ones, that's what I'd be doing if I got a CHS flag at a time when hiking or paddling out to do a check in the next week or two wasn't convenient or would likely be too risky (summer heatwaves, fire dangers, strong winds or, at the other extreme from the summer of 2021, constant rainfall and floods). Sometimes defending a cache against the algorithm isn't worth the worry and effort and it's easier to just archive now and go out to retrieve the cache at a more convenient time.

 

The CHS seems to be overly trigger-happy on low D high T caches where a lot of the DNFs, at least those that have any content, tell a tale of misfortune that has nothing to do with the possibility the cache might be missing or in need of maintenance. Almost all the DNFs on my caches are like that, only twice has the cache actually been missing (one of those I archived, the other I subsequently found rehidden 50 metres away). The rest are all about mosquitoes, approaching storms, snakes blocking the trail, kids who'd had enough, muggles picnicing in the search area, imminent trains or ferries that had to be caught or whatever else can go wrong when attempting a cache that takes a lot of time and effort to complete.

 

If the goal is to rid the gameboard of any caches that have inactive owners, regardless of the state of the cache, then fine I guess, and maybe in areas with high cache density refreshing the game board is a good thing, but in more remote places where there are few active COs now, that just makes it harder for newcomers and visitors to find any caches at all.

[+thebruce0]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

From what I've heard the reviewers here say, they hate having to make subjective calls and are at lengths to keep everything as objective as possible.

Absolutely. It's the ideal. Not a guarantee. 

 

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

By the same token, a reviewer looking at a cache flagged by the CHS wouldn't be across any private correspondence between the DNFers and either the CO or previous finders.

You're projecting what you believe to be the standard. And you're effectively limiting 'all relevant knowledge' purely to the existence of 2 dnfs. I've shown why that's far too limited for what reviewers have access to and all that can influence decision-making. You and I do not have access to reviewer insight. A decision they make on a cache with 2 dnfs could be based on anywhere from solely as you say, to a whole lot of private communications with multiple people over years about whoever's involved. If you were a reviewer, you would know. But neither of us are, so you can't say that a decision to archive a cache is based solely on 2 DNFs, unless the reviewer has told you so.

 

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well it's not all reviewer judgment. Before the reviewer even gets involved, the owner is sent an email telling them "your geocache might need maintenance" and giving them three options:

I don't want to get into that email wording again because it was well fleshed out in prior threads, including the fact that the written words are not clear that a talking with a reviewer is an option, so that it is not disabled and/or archived. Provide a reasonable maintenance plan. That is all that's needed, as many reviewers have repeatedly mentioned.

 

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If the goal is to rid the gameboard of any caches that have inactive owners, regardless of the state of the cache, then fine I guess

Again, that's not the "goal" of the CHS. That result only happens if reviewers take action, by choice, on the flagged caches. The CHS is a tool the reviewers can use to carry out their duties more easily, and if they're told that their current job is to move towards refreshing the gameboard, then they will apply their actions more strictly as the CHS open the door for them.

Edited October 31, 2023 by thebruce0

[+Team Canary]

The Cache Health Score has been around forever and that's how Reviewers got notified of caches to check, the only additional step is that the Cache Owner now gets an email before the Reviewer gets flagged and you have a period of grace.

 

Why place it if you don't want it to be found? If you want it to be found, maintain it. If you don't want to maintain it, then that's on you, the CO, not the CHS! Pretty simple?

[+fizzymagic]

26 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Well it's not all reviewer judgment. Before the reviewer even gets involved, the owner is sent an email telling them "your geocache might need maintenance" and giving them three options:

• Maintenance: Visit your geocache, make any needed repairs, and post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find.
• Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a reasonable amount of time, please disable your geocache listing. Once you perform maintenance, you can enable it and post an “Owner Maintenance” log.
• Archive: If you decide it is time for your geocache to be permanently retired, please archive the listing and retrieve all physical stages.

Were it not for the statement that these three are the only options, I would have no problem with the CHS.

 

But because they are, I have a big problem with the CHS.  It infuriates me.

 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why treating your customers as recalcitrant 3-year-olds is considered a good business strategy.

[+Team Canary]

59 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Were it not for the statement that these three are the only options, I would have no problem with the CHS.

 

But because they are, I have a big problem with the CHS.  It infuriates me.

 

For the life of me, I cannot understand why treating your customers as recalcitrant 3-year-olds is considered a good business strategy.

 

Serious question, what else should owners do after a number of DNFs?

[+fizzymagic]

31 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

Serious question, what else should owners do after a number of DNFs?

 

As has been hashed over here about a thousand times (do a search):  it depends.  Most often, one of those three things.  But not always.

 

This thread is not the place to rehash all this yet again.

[+Team Canary]

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

 

As has been hashed over here about a thousand times (do a search):  it depends.  Most often, one of those three things.  But not always.

 

This thread is not the place to rehash all this yet again.

 

Thanks. Silly me, I must be a recalcitrant 3-year-old?

 

I cant think of a situation where I wouldn't do one of those.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Team Canary said:

 

Serious question, what else should owners do after a number of DNFs?

 

As for me, I read the DNF logs to see if what they say warrants a cache check or not. If their search failed because of swarms of mosquitoes, wasps, snakes or some such, I take no further action, but if it sounds like they did a pretty good search I'll go and do a check the next time the weather's conducive to that (a bit of a tall order the way this summer's shaping up). If the DNF just says "DNF" or some such, I'll message the DNFer to try to find out more detail, particularly if it's a multi as I'd like to know whether their problem was at a waypoint (usually easy for me to get to) or the final.

 

It also depends on the cache, as one that's tricky to find (with an appropriately high D rating) should be expected to get lots of DNFs and would be more likely to warrant a cache check to see if its camo has been compromised if it doesn't.

 

[+Team Canary]

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

As for me, I read the DNF logs to see if what they say warrants a cache check or not. If their search failed because of swarms of mosquitoes, wasps, snakes or some such, I take no further action, but if it sounds like they did a pretty good search I'll go and do a check the next time the weather's conducive to that (a bit of a tall order the way this summer's shaping up). If the DNF just says "DNF" or some such, I'll message the DNFer to try to find out more detail, particularly if it's a multi as I'd like to know whether their problem was at a waypoint (usually easy for me to get to) or the final.

 

It also depends on the cache, as one that's tricky to find (with an appropriately high D rating) should be expected to get lots of DNFs and would be more likely to warrant a cache check to see if its camo has been compromised if it doesn't.

 

Me too. All under maintenance. 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Why place it if you don't want it to be found? If you want it to be found, maintain it. If you don't want to maintain it, then that's on you, the CO, not the CHS! Pretty simple?

 

It's pretty simple if your cache is on a street corner where you can check on it on the way to the shops, but perhaps not quite so simple when it's a tough remote cache like the ones mentioned in the OP, where in all likelihood the cache didn't need maintenance but those DNFs were just unsuccessful aborted attempts. So far I've only had one CHS ping (sorry, flag), back in 2016 on a six-week-old 2/5 multi with one find and one DNF. I'd contacted the DNFer prior to the CHS email, exchanging photos with her of where she'd been searching versus where the cache actually was, so it was clearly a case of her looking in the wrong place, but the CHS email  provides no option for saying it's a false alarm, you either have to visit the cache and log an OM, disable it until you can, archive it, or do nothing and wait for the reviewer to act. Ordinarily I would have just paddled out to check on the cache and logged the required OM, but it all happened in the peak summer holiday season between Christmas and New Year when the normally quiet waterway is teaming with speed boats, water skiers and jet skis. I also didn't want to disable or archive it as the DNFer was keen to have another try, which she did a week later and made the find. I still don't know what the RIGHT thing was to do under those circumstances.

 

From my experience both as a CO and a searcher, most DNFs on the more challenging caches aren't due to a maintenance issue, they're just an unsuccessful seach, but the CHS treats them all as if they are.

[+Team Canary]

34 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

It's pretty simple if your cache is on a street corner where you can check on it on the way to the shops, but perhaps not quite so simple when it's a tough remote cache like the ones mentioned in the OP, where in all likelihood the cache didn't need maintenance but those DNFs were just unsuccessful aborted attempts. So far I've only had one CHS ping (sorry, flag), back in 2016 on a six-week-old 2/5 multi with one find and one DNF. I'd contacted the DNFer prior to the CHS email, exchanging photos with her of where she'd been searching versus where the cache actually was, so it was clearly a case of her looking in the wrong place, but the CHS email  provides no option for saying it's a false alarm, you either have to visit the cache and log an OM, disable it until you can, archive it, or do nothing and wait for the reviewer to act. Ordinarily I would have just paddled out to check on the cache and logged the required OM, but it all happened in the peak summer holiday season between Christmas and New Year when the normally quiet waterway is teaming with speed boats, water skiers and jet skis. I also didn't want to disable or archive it as the DNFer was keen to have another try, which she did a week later and made the find. I still don't know what the RIGHT thing was to do under those circumstances.

 

From my experience both as a CO and a searcher, most DNFs on the more challenging caches aren't due to a maintenance issue, they're just an unsuccessful seach, but the CHS treats them all as if they are.

 

You did the right thing. Investigated and gathered enough information to be a responsible Cache Owner and then it would be appropriate to log an Owner Maintenance log.

 

I have 50 or so caches that would take an hour or so to get to. The Blue Mountains and Central West is just as difficult to explore as the Central Coast. I choose to place them there and maintenance is my responsibility.

 

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

You did the right thing. Investigated and gathered enough information to be a responsible Cache Owner and then it would be appropriate to log an Owner Maintenance log.

 

 

My understanding is that you should only log an OM when you've actually visited the cache and confirmed it's all good, which I did a month later once all the speed-boaters had gone. That's another story, though, as I injured myself in the process.

 

17 minutes ago, Team Canary said:

I have 50 or so caches that would take an hour or so to get to. The Blue Mountains and Central West is just as difficult to explore as the Central Coast. I choose to place them there and maintenance is my responsibility.

 

I have no qualms about doing maintenance when it's actually needed, or archiving the cache and retrieving what I can if I don't think it's worth persevering with, but I don't like it being forced upon me at short notice by an algorithm when there's actually nothing wrong with the cache and I know there's nothing wrong. But my greater concern is the higher terrain remote caches that are generally well made and in good condition but have inactive owners, where a couple of DNFs that aren't due to maintenance issues can lead to their untimely archival. When I look at the top hiders of T3+ caches in my region I see that, unfortunately, I'm at the top of that list, but the next four are all pretty much inactive now with other aspects of their lives having pushed aside caching.

 

 

If all those caches got archived for not having responsive owners, there wouldn't be much else left besides mine. I turn 69 next week so my years as an active CO of higher terrain caches are also going to be limited (hopefully not for a while yet, but who knows?). Maybe it's inevitable that caching will just become short-lived roadside micros and Adventure Labs, but the CHS is doing its best to push it in that direction.

[+JL_HSTRE]

11 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

For the life of me, I cannot understand why treating your customers as recalcitrant 3-year-olds is considered a good business strategy.

 

Seems like a realistic baseline to treat humans.

 

Especially given the number of COs who consider criticism, DNFs, NMs, or general expectations of maintenance to be an affront. Attitudes that predate CHS.

 

Anyone whose reaction to a CHS notification is panic and anguish should reconsider their decision to be a CO.

 

Chill the hell out. Stop freaking out over an imagined emergency. You have a 30 day window to respond. Maintenance doesn't even need to be performed within that time; just an appropriate response given. Just show you are aware and responsive.