Jump to content

Your geocache might need maintenance.


Recommended Posts

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

Link to comment

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

 

At least the message doesn't say they'll archive it if no response within 30 days. It says it "might need some attention." Although I agree if they're sent too freely, it might be annoying.

Link to comment

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

 

I agree it's a little soon for your listing, but I see so many locally with stacks of DNF's for several months to over a year. Something needs to be done because too many will not post NM's or NA's, and when I do post NA normally I get a nasty message from the cache owner.

 

I'm guessing that too many of us have got the nasty messages is why most geocachers will not post NM or NA. So yes, something does need to be done to get cache owners to maintain (and not armchair maintenance) their geocaches.

Link to comment

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

 

Wow - I've never seen that before. Looks a bit over the top to me. Looking over the cache page, I think maybe it could use another 1/2 star in the Difficulty rating. I just read the Help Center article and that was one of the options they mentioned.

Link to comment

If it was triggered by those DNFs, that's extremely disappointing. Cache owners are the ones who need to measure the value and importance of DNF and NM logs. Spamming cache owners with email like that isn't acceptable. I hope there's a way to opt out of it.

 

Edit: I just unsubscribed from the "Tips & Tricks" option under email preferences. I hope that keeps such silliness out of my inbox. Sheesh.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

At least the message doesn't say they'll archive it if no response within 30 days.

 

I say let that message alert the local reviewer and if the CO has note physically visited the cache within 30 days, post a not that it will be temp disabled if the concern has not been addressed.

 

Even "lonely" caches require maintenance.

 

I had a few temp disabled by a reviewer once that had a DNF posted and I had not visited my cache in over a year. I think that has been discussed here in the forums that we should post Owner Maintenance on our cache pages every now and then after a DNF and no more finds.

Edited by Manville Possum
Link to comment

If it was triggered by those DNFs, that's extremely disappointing. Cache owners are the ones who need to measure the value and importance of DNF and NM logs. Spamming cache owners with email like that isn't acceptable. I hope there's a way to opt out of it.

 

Edit: I just unsubscribed from the "Tips & Tricks" option under email preferences. I hope that keeps such silliness out of my inbox. Sheesh.

 

I have the "Tips & Tricks" option selected. I had a cache that had 4 DNFs in a row from January to May (all from noobs and starting from the very next day after it had been found) and didn't get any such email, but my cache is rated 2-star difficulty.

Link to comment

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

 

I agree it's a little soon for your listing, but I see so many locally with stacks of DNF's for several months to over a year. Something needs to be done because too many will not post NM's or NA's, and when I do post NA normally I get a nasty message from the cache owner.

 

I'm guessing that too many of us have got the nasty messages is why most geocachers will not post NM or NA. So yes, something does need to be done to get cache owners to maintain (and not armchair maintenance) their geocaches.

 

+1

Link to comment

Just received what appears to be an automated notification from Geocaching HQ concerning one of my caches.

 

"Hello cleandrysurface,

 

Your geocache, Spa Creek Series: Shipwright Runs Downhill by cds (GC6BBYH), looks like it might need some attention. The recent logs may contain more details about what sort of maintenance needs to be performed. This could be anything from a new logbook to replacing a missing container. Here are a few options for what to do now:

  • 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.

For tips about how to perform maintenance and to learn why Geocaching HQ sends occasional geocache maintenance reminders, please see this Help Center article.

 

Thanks,

Geocaching HQ"

 

I have never received one of these before. Is this something new? This cache was last found less than two weeks ago. Am I going to get one of these emails every time three noobs in a row post DNFs on one of my caches? Could be a problem...

 

Your difficulty rating is D1.5. Should be an easy find. It may actually be missing. You might want to have a look.

Link to comment

I had a look at the list of caches near your cache and I'm seeing red wrenches on every page. Maybe there's a crackdown on delinquent owners and abandoned caches. Which would be a good thing IMO. If it catches a few caches with multiple DNFs in a row that aren't abandoned, responsible owners will hopefully understand that it means a cleaner database, less junk, better for all. When we sign up to use the GC site to post our caches we agree to maintenance.

 

I see that it's not a Reviewer note. Just an email nudge that maybe your cache needs to be checked to see if it is actually there.

Link to comment

Your difficulty rating is D1.5. Should be an easy find. It may actually be missing. You might want to have a look.

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Other finders comment on the "stealthy" design, and it's common for new cachers to overlook "easy" caches.

 

I like to post DNFs for my own records, but I never assume a cache is missing just because I didn't find it. I'll be thinking twice about posting DNFs now, knowing they could possibly trigger nuisance emails like that. Disappointing.

Link to comment

Looking over the cache page, I think maybe it could use another 1/2 star in the Difficulty rating.

 

Your difficulty rating is D1.5. Should be an easy find. It may actually be missing. You might want to have a look.

 

^These

 

A D1.5 cache with 40% of the logs being DNFs tells me the cache has one or more problems (e.g. coordinates are off, container has gone missing, etc.) or the difficulty rating is too low.

 

It would also be a good idea to use the Owner Maintenance log type when you check on the cache. You checked on it in April, but only posted a note. An Owner Maintenance log would more clearly declare to other cachers that you've checked on it and would also allow the automatic algorithm in question to know you checked on it. As it is now, all the algorithm can see is that there have been 11 finds and 8 DNFs on a D1.5 cache with no maintenance visits from the owner, so I'm not surprised that it thinks there could be a problem.

Link to comment

Your difficulty rating is D1.5. Should be an easy find. It may actually be missing. You might want to have a look.

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Other finders comment on the "stealthy" design, and it's common for new cachers to overlook "easy" caches.

 

 

Hmmm. You may be right about that. The DNFs are from geocachers with low numbers (double digits).

 

Still, in general, I'm really glad that GS is being proactive, even if it means some owners get caught in the net. As a CO it's relatively easy to deal with, it's not even a reviewer note. I'd probably wait for one more DNF and then go check. Actually no, I'd go check anyway. My caches are in spots I don't mind re-visiting a few of times a year if necessary.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Your difficulty rating is D1.5. Should be an easy find. It may actually be missing. You might want to have a look.

 

Maybe. Or maybe not. Other finders comment on the "stealthy" design, and it's common for new cachers to overlook "easy" caches.

 

 

Hmmm. You may be right about that. The DNFs are from geocachers with low numbers (double digits).

 

Still, in general, I'm really glad that GS is being proactive, even if it means some owners get caught in the net. As a CO it's relatively easy to deal with, it's not even a reviewer note. I'd probably wait for one more DNF and then go check. Actually no, I'd go check anyway. My caches are in spots I don't mind re-visiting a few of times a year if necessary.

 

For me, it entirely depends on the content of the DNF, and the person who posted it. I place very little value on DNFs by non-trusted geocachers if there isn't something descriptive there to make me think there's actually something wrong.

 

We really need to be moving away from the idea that DNF = missing. This email system is making it worse, not better. I use DNF for myself as much as anything, and I really wouldn't want to be the cause of a nuisance email to a cache owner because I had a dumb moment and couldn't spot an easy cache. It happens to the best of us.

Link to comment

That was in the Release Notes from last September.

 

Fantastic. I missed that. Nice to see Groundspeak being proactive.

Somewhat to my surprise, this is only the second or third thread that's discussed the new automated emails since they began last fall.

 

It's important to stress that they're just alerts/reminders that a cache "may" need attention. More drastic action, like disabling or archiving a listing, needs to involve a human. That's where reviewers come in (even the ones who are dogs). Great work has been done behind the scenes over the past year to help with bringing maintenance issues to our attention in a semi-automated fashion, including these emails.

Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

 

I think a D2.5 would be the best fit...

 

"A mild challenge but relatively easy for an experienced geocacher."

 

from: Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

 

You just can't win with difficulty ratings on those. Rate it 1.5 and the noobs strike out. Rate it 2.5 and people make fun of it for being too easy.

 

And neither situation necessitates an intrusive email from HQ.

Link to comment
Somewhat to my surprise, this is only the second or third thread that's discussed the new automated emails since they began last fall.

 

Maybe. I am an long-time cacher so I don't hide urban caches that get a bunch of DNFs from newbies, so it's not likely I would have seen the email. Maybe others are in the same boat. New cachers are probably not surprised at the patronizing and parental attitude of HQ, perhaps because "patronizing and parental" is the very essence of the intro app.

 

Or maybe it's that we've just given up on hoping that HQ will ever prioritize any of the features cachers have been begging for over the years. Seeing the completely wasted effort that went into this "helpful" note just makes me a little sadder than nobody at HQ can be bothered to take a couple of hours to put a flag in the PQ data to let us know if a cache has corrected coords, or to put a simple little line into the GPX files to let us know how many favorite points a cache has.

 

Those things that would actually, you know, make the interface better, rather than simply more centrally controlled.

 

So I am tired. Tired of banging my head against the wall, tired of intrusive nonsense like this from HQ that nobody asked for. Luckily, I have good email filters, and I can make this stuff disappear.

Link to comment

I disagree strongly that "nobody asked" for Geocaching HQ to "do something" about all the poorly maintained caches out there. While there may be some "false positives" with the algorithm that triggers the email, there are many valid nudges being sent out. Each automated email means less work for the local community volunteer reviewer, so yay for that.

 

Also, perhaps your community does a good job of self-policing, through "needs maintenance" logs that actually evoke responses from active cache owners, or from "needs archived" logs when and where needed. That isn't the case everywhere. The automated emails fill the gap when the community hasn't made use of the established tools, and/or where the cache owners aren't responding to those logs.

Link to comment

The ones I remembered were around the same time as the release notes. :)

1 - might need attention.

2 - might need attention.

3 - might need attention.

4 - might need attention.

Really thought there'd be one each month, but nope, kinda died out.

 

Also thought things would be worse near me, but that didn't happen either.

- Folks haven't changed, they still aren't logging DNF, NM, or NA. :laughing:

Link to comment

I'm a long time cacher that doesn't own a bunch of urban hides, and I'm tired of all the unmaintained caches in my area to the point that I am bored with geocaching.

 

I strongly disagree with fizzy's post for reasons that our moderator Mr. Keystone has pointed out. Some our our communitys need this, and we have good local reviewers. Too many will not make use of NM & NA logs because of the problems it creates between geocachers.

Link to comment

I disagree strongly that "nobody asked" for Geocaching HQ to "do something" about all the poorly maintained caches out there. ... Each automated email means less work for the local community volunteer reviewer, so yay for that.

 

In other words, when reviewers ask for something, it is prioritized, but when regular cachers do it is not.

 

That's how it looks from here, anyway. It's not terribly surprising, given the importance of reviewers to the business community. But you have to understand that it is extremely frustrating for the rest of us.

 

I don't disagree that HQ intended for these emails to help with the problems of unmaintained caches. I have no data, but my guess would be that they are relatively ineffective.

 

This thread is probably not the place to get into an extended discussion of how the current maintenance problems are a direct result of choices that gc.com made in its formulation of the guidelines, but if anyone is interested it might be an entertaining (albeit unproductive) discussion.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

In other words, when reviewers ask for something, it is prioritized, but when regular cachers do it is not.

 

That's how it looks from here, anyway. It's not terribly surprising, given the importance of reviewers to the business community. But you have to understand that it is extremely frustrating for the rest of us.

 

I'm not a reviewer, so I must be in that "rest of us" group, and I still disagree with you. You are speaking only for yourself. <_<

Link to comment

I disagree strongly that "nobody asked" for Geocaching HQ to "do something" about all the poorly maintained caches out there. While there may be some "false positives" with the algorithm that triggers the email, there are many valid nudges being sent out. Each automated email means less work for the local community volunteer reviewer, so yay for that.

 

Also, perhaps your community does a good job of self-policing, through "needs maintenance" logs that actually evoke responses from active cache owners, or from "needs archived" logs when and where needed. That isn't the case everywhere. The automated emails fill the gap when the community hasn't made use of the established tools, and/or where the cache owners aren't responding to those logs.

 

Using spam to shame cache owners out of using their own judgment isn't really "doing something" about poor cache maintenance.

 

Poorly maintained caches are owned by people who don't play anymore, or by people who have so many caches that they can't possibly keep track of maintenance issues in the logs. Adding one more email to the heap doesn't fix that.

 

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs. It's easy to use email to hound cache owners every time a noob can't find a cache. Actually fixing the problems that spoil the game? Crickets.

Link to comment

Cache maintenance. more specifically the lack of it, has always been a problem that people gripe about here (and for many good reasons). People seemed to want HQ to do something about it. This one feature has been added and the automated notice seems quite harmless to me and it doesn't involve volunteer reviewer or staff time.

 

Everyone here who complains about this feature clearly will not have any problems with this feature because they keep their caches meticulously maintained - as in when was the last time someone here claimed that cache maintenance is not important or that they don't do maintenance when NM logs are posted to their caches? So no one here should see this "spam" email notice more than once or twice in a... year? decade?

 

Fizzy suspects that these notices are relatively ineffective but Keystone has reported in another topic that the benefits are measurable.

 

I don't see how this feature is worth much angst.

Link to comment

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently.

 

This issue always seems to carry an emotional punch but until people start reporting that throw-downs involve more than a one or two percent of their total cache finds I won't feel much empathy for them. That would be 100 throw-downs per 5000 finds where the cache replacement presented an ACTUAL problem for the finder. I can't recall even 10 throw-down problems for my 8000 finds.

 

And whenever I ask this question... silence.

 

EDIT: To keep it on topic, though I don't have specific memories of ACTUAL throw-down problems I've had huuunndreeds of maintenance problems.

 

I think the automated maintenance emails are a plus for this game.

Edited by Team Sagefox
Link to comment

I don't see a problem with this feature. It is just a email. Doesn't seem like anything else. Like others have said I evaluate the DNF's on my caches. I sometimes now let them go if I don't feel it needs to be checked on. If I did get a email like this I would probably go check it. If I knew it was just new people not finding it I would just ignore it but I wouldn't see a problem noting one I might have missed.

Link to comment

Don't mind me. I get this way every 3 or 4 years when I realize that more time has gone by and the simple things that would really improve the game are still not implemented, and I realize how far geocaching has moved away from what it was when I started.

 

Then I get myself worked up because the problems that these emails are intended to address are problems that gc.com has foisted upon us all by a poorly-considered incentive structure.

 

In a couple of weeks, I'll get over it. Again. As I always do, when I remember that it's not that important.

Link to comment

There's no "shame" in receiving an email that says your cache "might" need maintenance. A log to your cache listing? That would be different, if unwarranted. The email is easily ignored, filtered or deleted.

 

I got one today for one of my player account's hides. It's probably legit, too. I appreciated the reminder, and felt no shame or resentment about receiving it.

 

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

Link to comment

I'm guessing that too many of us have got the nasty messages is why most geocachers will not post NM or NA. So yes, something does need to be done to get cache owners to maintain (and not armchair maintenance) their geocaches.

+1 , but I'd like to add to your first sentence that my experience here in the central Europe (CZ) is different, I do not remember any nasty message as a result of me posting NM or NA log. And I post them, especially NMs, frequently. Interesting...

Link to comment

I disagree strongly that "nobody asked" for Geocaching HQ to "do something" about all the poorly maintained caches out there. While there may be some "false positives" with the algorithm that triggers the email, there are many valid nudges being sent out. Each automated email means less work for the local community volunteer reviewer, so yay for that.

 

Also, perhaps your community does a good job of self-policing, through "needs maintenance" logs that actually evoke responses from active cache owners, or from "needs archived" logs when and where needed. That isn't the case everywhere. The automated emails fill the gap when the community hasn't made use of the established tools, and/or where the cache owners aren't responding to those logs.

 

Using spam to shame cache owners out of using their own judgment isn't really "doing something" about poor cache maintenance.

 

Poorly maintained caches are owned by people who don't play anymore, or by people who have so many caches that they can't possibly keep track of maintenance issues in the logs. Adding one more email to the heap doesn't fix that.

 

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs. It's easy to use email to hound cache owners every time a noob can't find a cache. Actually fixing the problems that spoil the game? Crickets.

 

Hardly spam - what harm does it do?? This one was a bit quick I think, an obvious case of newbies missing pretty standard containers.... maybe the system should pay less attention to DNFs from finders with <100 caches, and no attention to DNFs from those with <20...??? Perhaps if the CO has logged an OM on any of their caches in a certain time, the system should hold off longer? Should be easy to code I think.

Edited by lee737
Link to comment

Someone who's in the mood should do a forum search for public community requests asking Geocaching HQ to "do something" about the problem of poorly maintained caches. I recall several, but I'm going to bed now. In any case, HQ listened.

 

Are you under the impression that showing that other people besides reviewers requested something means that HQ did not prioritize the action because reviewers wanted it?

 

I am assuming that you understand basic logic, so my guess is that I hit a nerve. Sorry.

 

Anything more would be off topic.

Link to comment

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently.

 

This issue always seems to carry an emotional punch but until people start reporting that throw-downs involve more than a one or two percent of their total cache finds I won't feel much empathy for them. That would be 100 throw-downs per 5000 finds where the cache replacement presented an ACTUAL problem for the finder. I can't recall even 10 throw-down problems for my 8000 finds.

 

And whenever I ask this question... silence.

 

EDIT: To keep it on topic, though I don't have specific memories of ACTUAL throw-down problems I've had huuunndreeds of maintenance problems.

 

I think the automated maintenance emails are a plus for this game.

 

The problem, though perhaps not the biggest quality issue, with throw downs is that it absolves delinquent cache owners of their responsibility to maintain their caches. I got into a pissing match with a CO last winter after I posted a NA log on his vacation cache. He owns almost 300 caches and his maintenance strategy (he explicitly states this on many of his cache listings) is to rely on the good will of the geocaching community to keep his caches maintained for him, "AS WITH ALL MY CACHES - IF THE LOG IS WET SIMPLY REPLACE IT - Its quicker and easier for you to replace it for me than to log a "maintanence" for a just piece of paper- THANKS!"

I don't have a problem with geocachers helping each out - its part of the culture. But to come to rely on that help, much less blatantly asking for that help because it is expected, which then frees up more time to put out more caches, is just wrong.

Let me reiterate that the cache that I received the notification for was found less than two weeks ago and was only published 4 months ago. I don't necessarily have an issue with notifications. I just think that it was ridiculous to receive a notification in that particular circumstance. So now, instead of a noob, after seeing two previous DNFs and not finding it themselves, proclaiming in their DNF log "I think its missing", we have an algorithm that does it for them. Brilliant.

Next time, don't cheap out so much at the algorithm store.

 

Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

 

I think a D2.5 would be the best fit...

 

"A mild challenge but relatively easy for an experienced geocacher."

 

from: Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain

 

1.5 = Easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes.

 

The hint for the cache is "magnetic". How many magnetic surfaces do you see on that tiny building? Only two sides are accessible. Its a shiny new residential outlet cover in plain view that doesn't even match the cabinet that it is stuck to.

 

The reality is that newbies don't pay attention to D/T ratings. I recently had a newbie cuss me out in his log on a D4 cache of mine and tell me not to make it so hard. But, the algorithm apparently DOES pay attention to the D rating and kicks into gear after a couple of DNFs. I set the D rating relative to my other caches and other listings in the area. I suppose I could try and make it easier by drawing a big arrow that points to it, but that would be frowned upon.

Link to comment

Of course, there's no sign of any real help for the biggest cache quality issue of the day, i.e. throw-downs.

You and others have said this before but I still am curious how this has been an actual problem for you (and anyone else) much less it being the "biggest" quality issue of the game currently.

 

I have found as many as three containers for a single cache, and I'm only in the hundreds of finds That's not a problem?

Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

 

I think a D2.5 would be the best fit...

 

"A mild challenge but relatively easy for an experienced geocacher."

 

from: Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain

 

1.5 = Easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes.

 

The hint for the cache is "magnetic". How many magnetic surfaces do you see on that tiny building? Only two sides are accessible. Its a shiny new residential outlet cover in plain view that doesn't even match the cabinet that it is stuck to.

 

The reality is that newbies don't pay attention to D/T ratings. I recently had a newbie cuss me out in his log on a D4 cache of mine and tell me not to make it so hard. But, the algorithm apparently DOES pay attention to the D rating and kicks into gear after a couple of DNFs. I set the D rating relative to my other caches and other listings in the area. I suppose I could try and make it easier by drawing a big arrow that points to it, but that would be frowned upon.

 

I agree that this type of cache is easy for the experienced cacher. Definitely a 1 or 1.5 for anyone who has found one of these already.

This style of cache is generally placed to be an evil cache, something that will impress the newbie with its clever disguise.

If you don't mean for it to stump people and are only using this disguise to keep it from muggles, perhaps you can put a more give away clue in the hint, since experienced cachers will see the cache immediately and won't need the hint but newbies will appreciate an "easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes". Currently it's taking new cachers 1/2 hour and still they aren't finding it. "Magnetic" isn't working for them. Maybe: Flat. Magnetic. In plain sight.

Or up the D to a 2.5 and in the description write that it will be a D1 for experienced cachers but might be difficult for newbies.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Let's compare this thread to the ones about logging DNFs where people comment that if they plan to go to look for a cache they will post a DNF if for whatever reason they didn't actually even go to GZ.

 

I don't post DNFs like that, but I do post DMFs after searches that weren't thorough, because it's for my own records as much as anything.

 

If my DNF logs are going to be treated as NM logs, I will probably change and stop using DNF at all. I don't want to receive these nuisance emails and I don't want to trigger them for others.

Link to comment
"Magnetic" isn't working for them. Maybe: Flat. Magnetic. In plain sight.

I don't believe dumbing down the hobby is a fix.

Those who for some odd reason feel that (whatever the D/T) everything should be easy for them, will finally move on to the next app on the list.

Those who choose to use a couple extra brain cells will stay.

Edited by cerberus1
Link to comment

11 Finds vs 8 DNFs = not a D1.5, assuming coords are good and container is in place.

 

Stopped by on the way home and checked on this before continuing this conversation any further. Here is a pic of my 'stealthy' cache that is magnetically attached to the Shi(pwrigh)t pumping station and a pic of the entire pumping station. Unfortunately, the pictures do not effectively convey the smell of this cache. Admittedly, the second cache that I ever found was one of these and I had to try it twice, but it was very well concealed in the space between a junction box and the pole that it was attached to. That one was rated a D2.5.

 

So really, you would give this a D greater than 1.5?

 

Shipwright_16-0718-00.JPGShipwright_160718-01.JPG

 

In contrast, I have another cache just up the street, GC6AJHD , that is a D3 with 5 DNFs in a row over the course of 2 months by people who should have found it, but no email notification on that one. The last person to find it was a noob with only 9 finds. Go figure.

 

I think a D2.5 would be the best fit...

 

"A mild challenge but relatively easy for an experienced geocacher."

 

from: Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain

 

1.5 = Easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes.

 

The hint for the cache is "magnetic". How many magnetic surfaces do you see on that tiny building? Only two sides are accessible. Its a shiny new residential outlet cover in plain view that doesn't even match the cabinet that it is stuck to.

 

The reality is that newbies don't pay attention to D/T ratings. I recently had a newbie cuss me out in his log on a D4 cache of mine and tell me not to make it so hard. But, the algorithm apparently DOES pay attention to the D rating and kicks into gear after a couple of DNFs. I set the D rating relative to my other caches and other listings in the area. I suppose I could try and make it easier by drawing a big arrow that points to it, but that would be frowned upon.

 

I agree that this type of cache is easy for the experienced cacher. Definitely a 1 or 1.5 for anyone who has found one of these already.

This style of cache is generally placed to be an evil cache, something that will impress the newbie with its clever disguise.

If you don't mean for it to stump people and are only using this disguise to keep it from muggles, perhaps you can put a more give away clue in the hint, since experienced cachers will see the cache immediately and won't need the hint but newbies will appreciate an "easy to find or solve within about 10-15 minutes". Currently it's taking new cachers 1/2 hour and still they aren't finding it. "Magnetic" isn't working for them. Maybe: Flat. Magnetic. In plain sight.

Or up the D to a 2.5 and in the description write that it will be a D1 for experienced cachers but might be difficult for newbies.

 

It took me three visits to find my first LPC. By this logic they should all be terrain (my deepest apologies for the error) difficulty 2.5. I don't think so.

Edited by narcissa
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...