Emails from HQ

[+Lellynelly]

I very often get emails from HQ telling me my 'Geocache may need attention' when it clearly doesn't, or probably doesn't, eg when I have only had 2 or 3 DNFs but lots of finds.
If I have had half a dozen or more DNFs since the last find, then fair enough. But I got yet another email today telling me that my Geocache 'may need attention' when I have only had ONE DNF since the last find - ONE!.
I then feel obliged to go check on it when I don't necessarily have the time, because if I don't log an owner maintenance log saying that it's fine, I then get threatened with it being archived.
Why are they so over-zealous and what can I do? if anything.
 

[+arisoft]

48 minutes ago, Lellynelly said:

Why are they so over-zealous and what can I do?

 

As time passes, you will eventually get used to them. It is just a bot posting reminders. Nothing happens if you put them in the trans bind after reading.

[+Max and 99]

Locals get a warning if they ignore the health score email.  Action is required. 

[+arisoft]

6 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Locals get a warning if they ignore the health score email.  Action is required. 

 

What kind of warning? Never seen one.

[+Max and 99]

"Geocaching HQ uses a calculation called Health Score which rates caches to identify those that might need attention from the cache owner. Emails are sent by Geocaching HQ to the cache owners of low scoring caches to encourage them to check on their caches. To learn more about the Health Score and what can affect your cache's Health Score, I recommend that you read this Help Center article (link).

Based upon its Health Score, this cache has been flagged by Geocaching HQ as one that may need attention. You should have received an email about this some time ago.

I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email. Therefore, I am temporarily disabling this cache until you, the owner, can check on its status. After checking the cache and doing any necessary maintenance, you can click on the “enable listing” button on the top of the cache page to reactivate it. You do not have to contact me to do it for you. Also, please post an Owner Maintenance log after you have checked on your cache.

NOTE: If your cache is actually there, you might consider raising the Difficulty rating on it, as it may be much harder to find than the Difficulty rating shown on your cache page.

Please be aware that if you do not take action to address the issue with your cache within 30 days of the date of this log, or at least post a note to your cache page that you intend to do so, it will be archived at the direction of Geocaching HQ."

_________

Apologies if "warning" was too strong of a word. 

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I see no evidence that you have done anything in response to this email. Therefore, I am temporarily disabling this cache

 

Are you sure that this was not sent by a local reviewer?  See https://coord.info/GL1CC78XA

Edited October 24, 2024 by arisoft

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

Are you sure that this was not sent by a local reviewer?

Yes, by a reviewer. But the point being you can't just ignore the CHS email. 

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

Yes, by a reviewer. But the point being you can't just ignore the CHS email. 

 

But this proves the opposite. Nothing happened. The reviewer considered the situation and decided that the cache needs some attention. It is not posted automatically.

[+JL_HSTRE]

19 hours ago, Lellynelly said:

But I got yet another email today telling me that my Geocache 'may need attention' when I have only had ONE DNF since the last find - ONE!.

 

1 DNF, but how long has it been since there were a logged Find?

 

If a 1.5/1.5 cache hasn't had a Find logged in six months and gets its first DNF  after dozens of Finds, that is a cause for concern unless the DNFer is a newbie.

[+x7Kevin]

20 hours ago, Lellynelly said:

If I have had half a dozen or more DNFs since the last find, then fair enough.

 

If you are having six or more DNFs in row (on different days/some experienced cachers) and the cache is still in the intended spot, in my opinion it should be a D4 at minimum, probably higher. 

 

If I had 3 DNFs in a row on different days I would probably disable the cache myself even if there was no warning, because the chance something is wrong is extremely high. 

 

You don't have to immediately drop everything and run out the door. If you can't get out right away just temporarily disable until you can go check on it. 

 

The reason they're 'over-zealous' is because their data shows that usually when those conditions are met the cache is missing, and having people search for caches that are missing is bad for the game overall. 

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If a 1.5/1.5 cache hasn't had a Find logged in six months and gets its first DNF  after dozens of Finds, that is a cause for concern unless the DNFer is a newbie.

 

There are 6923 non-event 1.5/1.5 or lower caches in New South Wales (Australia), of which 759 (11%) have gone six months or more since their last find. Sure, some might be missing, but most are just in places that get few visitors once all the locals have done them.

 

One of my own caches (GC6JMDK), admittedly a 2.5/4 multi, was getting finds every few months until October 2020 when, I guess, everyone who was interested had done it and it hasn't been found since. I've checked on it three times in the intervening four years and everything, including all its virtual waypoints, is fine. Another 19 of my active hides were last found more than six months ago, with 13 of those clocking up more than a year since their last find. There have been a few DNFs in that time, with reasons given including muggles at GZ, snakes and running out of daylight, but none are missing.

 

Back in 2015, a prominent local cacher said in the description of his new multi that "This cache, like all caches on the Central Coast with a walk involved, will probably get found 5 times in quick succession and then never again as no-one from anywhere else bothers to come here". It actually got 8 finds in its first year and has had the occasional one since (including one this year), but what he said is essentially true.

[+Lellynelly]

On 10/25/2024 at 2:28 PM, x7Kevin said:

 

If you are having six or more DNFs in row (on different days/some experienced cachers) and the cache is still in the intended spot, in my opinion it should be a D4 at minimum, probably higher. 

 

If I had 3 DNFs in a row on different days I would probably disable the cache myself even if there was no warning, because the chance something is wrong is extremely high. 

 

You don't have to immediately drop everything and run out the door. If you can't get out right away just temporarily disable until you can go check on it. 

 

The reason they're 'over-zealous' is because their data shows that usually when those conditions are met the cache is missing, and having people search for caches that are missing is bad for the game overall. 

re: you're last sentence I agree yes, but the point is that there haven't been 3 or more dnfs on different days.
I had 1 dnf on 20th October, The previous log was a find at the end of August.  It is usual for there to be some weeks between logs, or even months because I live in a rural location.

[+Lellynelly]

On 10/24/2024 at 7:23 PM, arisoft said:

 

What kind of warning? Never seen one.

They disable the cache or say they will disable if I don't do the  necessary maintenance, as Max and 99 have posted 

[+x7Kevin]

11 hours ago, Lellynelly said:

re: you're last sentence I agree yes, but the point is that there haven't been 3 or more dnfs on different days.
I had 1 dnf on 20th October, The previous log was a find at the end of August.  It is usual for there to be some weeks between logs, or even months because I live in a rural location.

 

I was responding to the first part of your post, but in regards to that specific example it makes no sense. I can't believe a reviewer would threaten to archive your cache because of one DNF? If that's just an automatic e-mail then you can just ignore it.