Jump to content

Geocache Health Score


Team Microdot

Recommended Posts

This algorithm is based on a combination of logs and circumstances, including

 

Did Not Find (DNF)

Needs Maintenance (NM)

Needs Archived (NA)

Caches that have not been found in a long time

Difficulty and terrain rating

 

We really don't like the 4th circumstance in that list. We have several remote caches that don't get many visitors, the people that have gone have really liked them though so I don't think archiving is really the answer. We also have several that require a bit of a hike to get to them so they also don't get many visits.... again, the people that do go to them love them so there is no good reason to archive.

 

I would hate to see this hobby turn into 1/1 caches only! Many cachers, us included, prefer remote caches, caches that require a hike, kayak and canoe caches..... those are all going to be affected by 4 and 5 on that list.

Link to comment

This score seems to be the trigger for the automatic email which we do know about.

 

They did that as they are trying to help owners improve their maintenance by alerting them to caches which may need attention. I have no issue with that. Yes, one can say the good owners don't need this as they will be on top of things anyway, and the worst owners will ignore it. But there may be a middle ground of owners for which this will help.

 

The algorithm seems to need a bit of tweaking though. I've seen a recent case where a new, 3/3 cache was published. In the first 2 weeks there were 2 attempts to find it, both DNFs. Then the automatic mail was sent.

Link to comment

Not really sure either. It sounds great, at least until the first cacher who routinely takes care of maintenance gets dinged for a cache with multiple DNFs (even though it's a 4 D cache) or is a remote cache with a find rate of once every two years.

 

It seems the algorithm takes D/T into account....

 

  • Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect.

And a reviewer has a look if the health score remains low...

 

"If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance."

 

It sounds like this will be good for the pastime. Maybe there will be less junk, or this will morph into a public health score that will allow us to filter out those caches.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

This score seems to be the trigger for the automatic email which we do know about.

 

They did that as they are trying to help owners improve their maintenance by alerting them to caches which may need attention. I have no issue with that. Yes, one can say the good owners don't need this as they will be on top of things anyway, and the worst owners will ignore it. But there may be a middle ground of owners for which this will help.

 

I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak (or is it Geocaching HQ these days?) have lost faith in communities to keep their respective houses in order :unsure:

Link to comment

I can see NMs, DNFs, and such, but "Caches that have not been found in a long time" (I feel) aren't in the same group.

 

We have a couple that are found (often in groups) maybe once a year.

One ammo can hide, though very distant to get to, I can see from the road, and can tell it hasn't been bothered.

To have to spend a full day to access, simply to find that yeah, nothing's changed, doesn't really make much sense to me.

- Computers don't have common sense, needing a trigger to kick it in.

Another huge one sits high in a tree, and can easily tell it's still there. :)

- Yet that one generates the most fake finds.

A shame that system can't also void fake finders memberships for a certain amount of time.

- Maybe reporting each fake finder to HQ will fix that...

Another ammo can hide isn't even a mile walk total, yet only visited only once or twice a year.

I need to check on it simply because some (many? most?) cachers have changed this outdoors hobby to roadside/parking lot C&Ds?

- Sad...

Link to comment

This score seems to be the trigger for the automatic email which we do know about.

 

They did that as they are trying to help owners improve their maintenance by alerting them to caches which may need attention. I have no issue with that. Yes, one can say the good owners don't need this as they will be on top of things anyway, and the worst owners will ignore it. But there may be a middle ground of owners for which this will help.

 

I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak (or is it Geocaching HQ these days?) have lost faith in communities to keep their respective houses in order :unsure:

+1

That's sorta how I see it.

Can't tell you how many times we've seen hides with mention of issues in logs, some going back years (there's a recent thread on that...), yet not even one "finder" placed a NM or NA on it.

These are PMs with tens of thousands of finds.

Sadly, it's usually a new person asking "what to do" here in the forums that gets the ball rolling.

Link to comment

This score seems to be the trigger for the automatic email which we do know about.

 

They did that as they are trying to help owners improve their maintenance by alerting them to caches which may need attention. I have no issue with that. Yes, one can say the good owners don't need this as they will be on top of things anyway, and the worst owners will ignore it. But there may be a middle ground of owners for which this will help.

 

I can't help but wonder if Groundspeak (or is it Geocaching HQ these days?) have lost faith in communities to keep their respective houses in order :unsure:

+1

That's sorta how I see it.

Can't tell you how many times we've seen hides with mention of issues in logs, some going back years (there's a recent thread on that...), yet not even one "finder" placed a NM or NA on it.

These are PMs with tens of thousands of finds.

Sadly, it's usually a new person asking "what to do" here in the forums that gets the ball rolling.

 

I see worse than that.

 

I've seen caches which have clearly been wet, filthy, broken junk for years but keep rolling on, despite the odd NM, and anyone who dares suggest that they are fit for the bin ends up the receiving end of aggressive and unsalutary messages from people who think the junk should be kept alive just because it's an old cache :mad:

 

It would be incredibly sad to have to hand over duty of care to a robot because we aren't grown up enough to keep things in good order ourselves but if meant fewer piles of rotting junk being kept alive I'd probably vote for it.

Link to comment
The algorithm seems to need a bit of tweaking though. I've seen a recent case where a new, 3/3 cache was published. In the first 2 weeks there were 2 attempts to find it, both DNFs. Then the automatic mail was sent.

+1

The "algorithm" doesn't take into account weather conditions, mood, or simply that some cachers can't find squat. :)

People need to evaluate that.

A couple new folks, or me having a brain fart day doesn't mean there's issues immediately...

 

When this first came out a good while back I asked a Lackey (here in the forums) if D/T is going to be considered and was told yes, but they didn't explain that a computer was gonna somehow be able to factor in humans to the mix.

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

Link to comment

When I run a PQ for caches with the red wrench within 25 km of my home location I get 489 caches.

Looking at the list of owners I see some that used to be good at maintaining their caches, not anymore.

Of the used-to-be good owners most of them reply to the reviewer disable with, I'll get to it within a couple of weeks, then they do nothing.

Then there's the numbers owners who johnny-appleseed areas with a sackful of pill bottles or upcycled-from-the-trash leaky containers. They never intend to replace those leaky caches. When they first started they would at least archive their caches when problems were reported, now they let the reviewer handle the archiving.

There's the other 40% - fly-by-nighters, they planted one or a few then never came back to the site.

 

I hope this new Health Score thing will help to instill an expectation of responsible cache ownership. I imagine reviewers' are spending more and more hours per week posting reviewer notes and archiving delinquent caches. The current cache owner trend is to let reviewers handle archiving.

Link to comment

I hope this new Health Score thing will help to instill an expectation of responsible cache ownership.

 

I hope so too.

 

What it won't do is address the issue of factions who aggressively combat the very people who make good and proper use of the existing tools to keep standards high by regularly clearing out the dead and dying.

 

I imagine reviewers' are spending more and more hours per week posting reviewer notes and archiving delinquent caches.

 

Probably because they have to fill in for the average community-minded cacher who would at one time have responsibly made use of NM's and NA's but latterly opts for a quiet life for fear of abuse.

 

The current cache owner trend is to let reviewers handle archiving.

 

What a sorry state of affairs :(

Link to comment

I hope this new Health Score thing will help to instill an expectation of responsible cache ownership.

 

I hope so too.

 

What it won't do is address the issue of factions who aggressively combat the very people who make good and proper use of the existing tools to keep standards high by regularly clearing out the dead and dying.

 

I imagine reviewers' are spending more and more hours per week posting reviewer notes and archiving delinquent caches.

 

Probably because they have to fill in for the average community-minded cacher who would at one time have responsibly made use of NM's and NA's but latterly opts for a quiet life for fear of abuse.

 

The current cache owner trend is to let reviewers handle archiving.

 

What a sorry state of affairs :(

 

Thankfully, the first encounter with a nasty CO was quickly squashed by the reviewer. If he hadn't stepped in, that CO might have been successful in trying to bully me and maybe others reading his public note, into not logging NAs. Having the reviewer respond so quickly and be my side really helped.

 

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

Link to comment

I hope this new Health Score thing will help to instill an expectation of responsible cache ownership.

 

I hope so too.

 

What it won't do is address the issue of factions who aggressively combat the very people who make good and proper use of the existing tools to keep standards high by regularly clearing out the dead and dying.

 

I imagine reviewers' are spending more and more hours per week posting reviewer notes and archiving delinquent caches.

 

Probably because they have to fill in for the average community-minded cacher who would at one time have responsibly made use of NM's and NA's but latterly opts for a quiet life for fear of abuse.

 

The current cache owner trend is to let reviewers handle archiving.

 

What a sorry state of affairs :(

 

Thankfully, the first encounter with a nasty CO was quickly squashed by the reviewer. If he hadn't stepped in, that CO might have been successful in trying to bully me and maybe others reading his public note, into not logging NAs. Having the reviewer respond so quickly and be my side really helped.

 

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

 

The caches I'm thinking of are ownerless in the sense that the CO abandoned their caches and caching long ago.

Link to comment

Thankfully, the first encounter with a nasty CO was quickly squashed by the reviewer. If he hadn't stepped in, that CO might have been successful in trying to bully me and maybe others reading his public note, into not logging NAs. Having the reviewer respond so quickly and be my side really helped.

 

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

 

I've had a few CO's just use their cache page to post "bully" notes about me for posting a NA on their listing. :(

Link to comment

Maybe there will be less junk, or this will morph into a public health score that will allow us to filter out those caches.

 

NM's and NA's are public and I would say their use actually suffers as a result of that - people won't use them for fear of the abuse from some sections of the 'community'.

 

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

Link to comment

Maybe there will be less junk, or this will morph into a public health score that will allow us to filter out those caches.

 

NM's and NA's are public and I would say their use actually suffers as a result of that - people won't use them for fear of the abuse from some sections of the 'community'.

 

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

 

Something really does need done to improve the soggy paper game. :( I posted a NM a couple of days ago on a cache that was full to the top with water. The next day, a finder posted how easy it was to dump the water out of the broken container and add a log. :blink: I followed up with a NA "Needs Owners Attention".

 

When I place a geocache, I agree to maintain it, not the community to maintain it for be. I hold others to that same standard, but seems I'm the bad guy for reporting problems that the CO needs to take care of. :huh:

Link to comment

Maybe there will be less junk, or this will morph into a public health score that will allow us to filter out those caches.

 

NM's and NA's are public and I would say their use actually suffers as a result of that - people won't use them for fear of the abuse from some sections of the 'community'.

 

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

 

I like the suggestion, especially the anonymous part - probably less abuse will happen. Those who would pad the system in favour of a better score are less likely to do so if they don't see the score.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

Naturally I can't imagine the grief you're getting, so this suggestion might not be applicable to you, but in general, if people ignore such tirades, they're never going to go away. If it was at all possible, I'd try to deflect the attack with practicality. For example, perhaps saying that I didn't realize he was already aware of the seriousness of the problem, pointing out that I had no choice but to file the NA, and suggesting what the CO could have done before I filed the NA to make it clear to me that the NA wasn't needed.

 

The idea is to try to slip in some education without triggering an escalation. But I recognize that in some cases, the escalation seems so inevitable that there's no hope that any the attempt at education will do anything except make things worse. That situation would be sad, but I'd have to accept it.

Link to comment

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

Soooo, you're suggesting a network of informers that passes information to the secret police?

 

A CO that gets angry about an honest problem report is going to get furious about whispers damning his caches without being able to face his accusers. That's going to trigger a whole new level of irrational behavior, and you can bet he'll understand he has to retaliate secretly.

 

No, sorry, it just makes no sense to respond to publicly observable bad behavior by creating a secret back channel to punish it.

Link to comment

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

Soooo, you're suggesting a network of informers that passes information to the secret police?

 

A CO that gets angry about an honest problem report is going to get furious about whispers damning his caches without being able to face his accusers. That's going to trigger a whole new level of irrational behavior, and you can bet he'll understand he has to retaliate secretly.

 

No, sorry, it just makes no sense to respond to publicly observable bad behavior by creating a secret back channel to punish it.

 

Yes, this. All parties need to "man-up", stop whining, and just get the maintenance done. I have no earthly idea why feelings need to be involved in this process at any level. For the heartbroken on either side of the maintenance issue (cache owners, nm/na reporters, alleged bullies, etc), get over yourselves.

Link to comment

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

 

I do not think that this is an appropriate approach - you do not know what the CO might want to tell you or ask you. I rather would want end up reading a berating email than missing one where e.g. someone with a nice cache which needs maintenance tells me why he/she right now is not able to maintain the cache and whether I or someone else I know could help. There are situations which one might not want to make public in a note on the cache page.

 

Moreover I think that there are different ways to write NM and NA logs. The less emotional they are the better. I do not think that it is a good idea to include statements like junk, waste of time etc in a NM/NA log.

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

It was hardly a non-event when my seven-week-old D2/T5 cache was pinged last Christmas after just one DNF. The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it. It's a T5 cache for a reason, I can't just drive up to it and take a quick look, particularly when it turned out that the DNF, like most DNFs, was because the searcher was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

I don't know whether the algorithm has been tweaked since then, but if it's still targeting high-terrain caches then I'm reluctant to hide any more like that.

Link to comment

I've recently discovered that there's this new thing called a Geocache Health Score that I'd not previously heard of.

 

You can read all about it here.

 

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

When GS did a makeover of the Help Center recently, they changed article titles, etc. This is the article that was originally titled "Owner Maintenance Emails", with some additional info.

 

GS sending "owner maintenance emails" started in 2015:

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834

 

Click the link to the Help Center article in that Release Note and be taken to the exact same Help Center page as cited in the OP.

 

So the name may be new, but the practice has been in play for a while now. There's some forum threads about it already.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it.

The email is nothing more than an advisory notice that your cache might need some action. "Do nothing" is naturally an option.

 

If it ever gets to the point that a reviewer looks at your cache based on its health score, this human* element will likely agree with your determination that no action is required on anyone's part.

 

*...or maybe dog...

Link to comment

I have taken to deleting without opening mail from COs on whose caches I've logged an NA. Not worth the agro of reading their berating emails. They have time to scold, but no time for maintenance or setting a good example.

 

I do not think that this is an appropriate approach - you do not know what the CO might want to tell you or ask you. I rather would want end up reading a berating email than missing one where e.g. someone with a nice cache which needs maintenance tells me why he/she right now is not able to maintain the cache and whether I or someone else I know could help. There are situations which one might not want to make public in a note on the cache page.

 

Moreover I think that there are different ways to write NM and NA logs. The less emotional they are the better. I do not think that it is a good idea to include statements like junk, waste of time etc in a NM/NA log.

 

I do not log NAs on nice caches with a little bit of an issue. Caches that I log with an NA, especially those with active owners, have multiple reports of issues that go ignored by the owner for months--sometimes years. I generally preface my NA's with "Needs Attention" then I list the issues and the dates of other NM logs and logs that report issues.

 

If an owner needs help with their cache, why wait months--sometimes years to ask? Why wait for an NA log? They can write a note to their cache page asking for help. Personally I don't understand why someone wouldn't archive a cache they can no longer care for, or at least put it up for adoption. There's too many excuses, too much support of irresponsible cache ownership. Too much propping up of caches that limp along. It's a game of 'owning' territory and never giving up that .1 mile circle.

Link to comment

The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it.

The email is nothing more than an advisory notice that your cache might need some action. "Do nothing" is naturally an option.

 

If it ever gets to the point that a reviewer looks at your cache based on its health score, this human* element will likely agree with your determination that no action is required on anyone's part.

 

*...or maybe dog...

Perhaps the email needs to actually include the "ignore if you think this has been sent in error" option then. At the time, the Help Centre article was quite clear that those were the only three options upon the receipt of the ping. The email itself said, "Here are a few options for what to do now" which to me implies that at least something has to be done.

 

I was told at the time that the reason my cache was pinged was because it'd only had one find in its seven weeks of life prior to the DNF. Other than changing it to a P&G, I'm not sure if any sort of maintenance action is going to remedy that. The impression I got is that we should only be hiding popular easy-to-reach easy-to-find caches now.

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

It was hardly a non-event when my seven-week-old D2/T5 cache was pinged last Christmas after just one DNF. The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it. It's a T5 cache for a reason, I can't just drive up to it and take a quick look, particularly when it turned out that the DNF, like most DNFs, was because the searcher was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

I don't know whether the algorithm has been tweaked since then, but if it's still targeting high-terrain caches then I'm reluctant to hide any more like that.

 

I agree that the email does not appear to be a non-event due to its wording. But it has no actual impact. No reviewers are CC'd on those emails. No NM or NA logs are automatically generated.

 

I believe Keystone did indicate that they can see if an automatic email has gone out and whether or not it prompted a response. But caches are still being disabled and/or archived the old fashioned way -- by reviewers, following indications outside of the cache health score algorithm that a cache needs reviewer attention.

Link to comment

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

Soooo, you're suggesting a network of informers that passes information to the secret police?

 

Oh dear! Should we cue the dramatic music now or save it for later? :laughing:

 

As far as I can remember a recognised alternative to posting an NA log for those gentle spirits who value peace and relaxation has been to privately bring one's concerns to the attention of a volunteer reviewer. And I'm not sure how your referring to volunteer reviewers as secret police is supposed to help but in any case I'm not suggesting some revolutionary mechanism that doesn't already exist - just perhaps some way of automating part of it in a bid to waste less of the reviewer's precious time and so allow them to focus on more productive things.

 

A CO that gets angry about an honest problem report is going to get furious about whispers damning his caches without being able to face his accusers. That's going to trigger a whole new level of irrational behavior, and you can bet he'll understand he has to retaliate secretly.

 

If I didn't know better I'd say you were playing the intimidation card which, ironically, is a fundamental part of the whole issue.

 

No, sorry, it just makes no sense to respond to publicly observable bad behavior by creating a secret back channel to punish it.

 

Report rather than punish and, as mentioned above, such a reporting channel has existed for as long as I can remember anyway.

Link to comment

Perhaps the email needs to actually include the "ignore if you think this has been sent in error" option then. At the time, the Help Centre article was quite clear that those were the only three options upon the receipt of the ping. The email itself said, "Here are a few options for what to do now" which to me implies that at least something has to be done.

I haven't received one of these emails, but I was under the impression that it included wording along the lines of "your cache might need repairs", or something to that effect. However, even if it does use the single weasel word "might", that still might not be enough to indicate that it's an advisory, so maybe you're right that the wording could be tweaked.

Link to comment

Moreover I think that there are different ways to write NM and NA logs. The less emotional they are the better. I do not think that it is a good idea to include statements like junk, waste of time etc in a NM/NA log.

 

In this regard you are quite correct.

 

NM/NA logs should be polite and stick to the facts.

 

Personally I believe that citing any relevant guidelines as part of NM/NA logs should be seen as an attempt to be helpful / to educate but sadly this, all too often, is not gratefully received.

Link to comment

Personally I don't understand why someone wouldn't archive a cache they can no longer care for, or at least put it up for adoption. There's too many excuses, too much support of irresponsible cache ownership. Too much propping up of caches that limp along. It's a game of 'owning' territory and never giving up that .1 mile circle.

 

It's also, for some at least, a game of perpetuating caches forever just because they are old.

Link to comment

When GS did a makeover of the Help Center recently, they changed article titles, etc. This is the article that was originally titled "Owner Maintenance Emails", with some additional info.

 

GS sending "owner maintenance emails" started in 2015:

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=334834

 

Click the link to the Help Center article in that Release Note and be taken to the exact same Help Center page as cited in the OP.

 

So the name may be new, but the practice has been in play for a while now. There's some forum threads about it already.

 

I'm curious to know though if the underlying reason for the name change and the coining of the Geocache Health Score is part of a larger plan to drive up cache health by regularly weeding out the dead and dying...

Link to comment

Yes, this. All parties need to "man-up", stop whining, and just get the maintenance done. I have no earthly idea why feelings need to be involved in this process at any level. For the heartbroken on either side of the maintenance issue (cache owners, nm/na reporters, alleged bullies, etc), get over yourselves.

 

Ever considered a career as a motivational speaker? :laughing:

 

You are of course absolutely right - the subject matter really doesn't merit the drama that seems to arise from it and yet it still goes on.

 

A person could be forgiven for thinking that archiving a junky cache was equivalent to putting a beloved pet to sleep :ph34r:

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

It was hardly a non-event when my seven-week-old D2/T5 cache was pinged last Christmas after just one DNF. The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it. It's a T5 cache for a reason, I can't just drive up to it and take a quick look, particularly when it turned out that the DNF, like most DNFs, was because the searcher was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

I don't know whether the algorithm has been tweaked since then, but if it's still targeting high-terrain caches then I'm reluctant to hide any more like that.

 

IMHO they need to add one additional option. Not an option to ignore the message; but an option to provide constructive feedback directly to the maintainer(s) of the algorithm. If they are not told of the FALSE POSITIVES, and why the CO believes it is a false positive, they will not know they need to tweak the algorithm or how. It is rather sad that TPTB don't solicit feedback from the very people who make their system possible.

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

It was hardly a non-event when my seven-week-old D2/T5 cache was pinged last Christmas after just one DNF. The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it. It's a T5 cache for a reason, I can't just drive up to it and take a quick look, particularly when it turned out that the DNF, like most DNFs, was because the searcher was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

I don't know whether the algorithm has been tweaked since then, but if it's still targeting high-terrain caches then I'm reluctant to hide any more like that.

 

I agree that the email does not appear to be a non-event due to its wording. But it has no actual impact. No reviewers are CC'd on those emails. No NM or NA logs are automatically generated.

 

I believe Keystone did indicate that they can see if an automatic email has gone out and whether or not it prompted a response. But caches are still being disabled and/or archived the old fashioned way -- by reviewers, following indications outside of the cache health score algorithm that a cache needs reviewer attention.

The Help Centre article says "If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance" so presumably reviewers are notified at some point if the email has gone out and the CO hasn't responded.

Link to comment

Perhaps people should be able to vote on cache health anonymously such that the aggregate of those scores - visible only to reviewers - feeds into the robotic cache health system.

Soooo, you're suggesting a network of informers that passes information to the secret police?

Oh dear! Should we cue the dramatic music now or save it for later? :laughing:

Put on the dramatic music now so you take the comment seriously.

 

As far as I can remember a recognised alternative to posting an NA log for those gentle spirits who value peace and relaxation has been to privately bring one's concerns to the attention of a volunteer reviewer.

Yes, I agree, a secret channel isn't new, but you're talking about making it the standard approach. You don't think that's what you're doing, but if a back channel voting mechanism is implemented, you can forget about anyone filing NMs and NAs. It's so much easier when there's an official way to make the reviewer the bad guy.

 

And I'm not sure how your referring to volunteer reviewers as secret police is supposed to help...

It's supposed to help by making you think about the fact that you're creating a formal channel by which people can anonymously reporting a "crime" which the reviewers are responsible to act against. When the reviewer reacts, he has to keep his source secret and, in fact, may find himself in a situation where he can't really explain the true problem. Before you start objecting, think about why the reviewer is expected to be frank with the CO when the person complaining can't be. Your answer will involve a statement of power that makes it clear the reviewer really is acting like police in this situation.

 

...but in any case I'm not suggesting some revolutionary mechanism that doesn't already exist - just perhaps some way of automating part of it in a bid to waste less of the reviewer's precious time and so allow them to focus on more productive things

Automating the process is a new mechanism. I have no idea why you think this will waste less of a reviewer's time since the whole point of making it anonymous is to encourage more people to report more things without taking any responsibility, so they're sure to complain more about less important things. And that's even before we consider that making it secret means that more people will report the same problem.

 

A CO that gets angry about an honest problem report is going to get furious about whispers damning his caches without being able to face his accusers. That's going to trigger a whole new level of irrational behavior, and you can bet he'll understand he has to retaliate secretly.

If I didn't know better I'd say you were playing the intimidation card which, ironically, is a fundamental part of the whole issue.

Sorry? You think I'm siding with the people being irrational? Wow, sorry for not being clearer. We're dealing with people that feel like they're being unfairly targeted. They're wrong, of course -- they're being fairly targeted -- but by making a huge part of the process secret, you won't discourage them, but you do give them a legitimate reason to feel paranoid and persecuted.

 

By the way, it just occurred to me that you might respond by saying something like "but at least their caches will be archived," and if you do, you might want to reconsider your comment below about this not being punishment.

 

No, sorry, it just makes no sense to respond to publicly observable bad behavior by creating a secret back channel to punish it.

Report rather than punish and, as mentioned above, such a reporting channel has existed for as long as I can remember anyway.

You say it's reporting, but from their point of view, it's punishment. Punishment -- by way of archival -- is the sum difference in the reviewer being involved.

 

The solution to COs that don't understand the function of NMs and NAs is more light, not less.

 

To get back to the OP: I don't care for the list, but the problems I have with it would be mitigated if local reviewers could declare their area community maintained, so the notices aren't needed. In areas with a problem, then multiple DNFs without an NM and even a cache no recent logs might make sense. For my area, they make no sense at all. If no one in my community has taken action against a cache, it's because there's no reason to take action against the cache. If the algorithm tells you otherwise, the algorithm's simply wrong.

Link to comment

I'm wondering what has motivated Groundspeak to take something which the community should be adult enough to take responsibility for and try to replace it with some blunt algorithm?

 

Cache maintenance has been an issue for years, particularly caches put out by people who lose interest in the game and never archive their caches. While this doesn't take the place of volunteer reviewers, it's an automated tool that was put out there to try and prompt cache owners to fix potential issues before the reviewers have to get involved.

 

For those caches that are being well maintained by proactive, responsible cache owners, it is a non-event.

It was hardly a non-event when my seven-week-old D2/T5 cache was pinged last Christmas after just one DNF. The options it gave me were to immediately visit the cache, "repair" it and log an OM, disable it until I could do so, or archive it. It's a T5 cache for a reason, I can't just drive up to it and take a quick look, particularly when it turned out that the DNF, like most DNFs, was because the searcher was looking in the wrong place. She went back a week later and found it.

 

I don't know whether the algorithm has been tweaked since then, but if it's still targeting high-terrain caches then I'm reluctant to hide any more like that.

 

IMHO they need to add one additional option. Not an option to ignore the message; but an option to provide constructive feedback directly to the maintainer(s) of the algorithm. If they are not told of the FALSE POSITIVES, and why the CO believes it is a false positive, they will not know they need to tweak the algorithm or how. It is rather sad that TPTB don't solicit feedback from the very people who make their system possible.

I agree entirely. Even when I tried to report the false positive through HQ Support, I just got back a boilerplate response explaining why the emails are sent. Perhaps something was passed back down the chain to the developers, or perhaps not, I don't know.

 

I'd be interested to know what proactive steps a CO can take to stay one step ahead of the bot. It'd be nice if we could see the Health Score on our own caches, but I can understand HQs reluctance to do this as it might encourage armchair OM logs. With DNFs and time between finds key elements of the algorithm, what can COs do to keep abreast other than discouraging people from logging DNFs or avoiding placing caches that are unlikely to get many finders?

Link to comment

I agree that the email does not appear to be a non-event due to its wording. But it has no actual impact. No reviewers are CC'd on those emails. No NM or NA logs are automatically generated.

 

I believe Keystone did indicate that they can see if an automatic email has gone out and whether or not it prompted a response. But caches are still being disabled and/or archived the old fashioned way -- by reviewers, following indications outside of the cache health score algorithm that a cache needs reviewer attention.

The Help Centre article says "If the score of a cache does not change after the email is sent, a community volunteer might follow up with further recommendations if it appears the geocache continues to need maintenance" so presumably reviewers are notified at some point if the email has gone out and the CO hasn't responded.

I think you presume incorrectly. But I am going off of the following post from Keystone replying to my earlier statement of this presumption, so my presumption (that reviewers are not notified when the automatic emails go out, but can look up whether a particular cache triggered the health score email) may not be correct.

 

There is a debate from time to time whether a person should post NM or NA without having actually visited the site. I think it's pretty extreme to post NA without having been there.

 

The algorithm at headquarters now would pick up on a lot of possible cache health issues and send the "your cache may need attention" letter.

 

What happens after such an email has been sent?

Nothing automatic, though I believe the local reviewer would be able to check if such an email had been sent and then would be able to gauge whether the CO had responded or not.

That's correct at a high level. The Health Score feature greatly aids reviewers in identifying listings that may require their attention. The human eye can weed out the maintenance emails which may not have been warranted due to imperfections in the algorithm.

 

His post in another thread (which you at one point were following, so you may already have seen it) confirms my presumption:

 

It takes human action to archive a cache listing. No auto-archiving is done by the robot that sends out Health Score emails based on the algorithm.

 

So, if the owner thinks the email wasn't necessary, and the cache is fine, I doubt highly that they will archive their cache listing. And, if that owner's Reviewer sees that the email was sent, and agrees that the algorithm incorrectly flagged the cache as needing maintenance, then the Reviewer won't archive the listing either. Rather, as was done here, Reviewers will provide their feedback to Geocaching HQ about ways in which the Health Score algorithm might be improved so as to reduce "false positives."

 

BlueRajah also confirmed in that same thread that caches still have to be archived the old fashioned way, by reviewers and not by hamster algorithms.

 

Note that the email, though generated by computer, did not say that your cache is going to be archived tomorrow. It is a quick statement saything that you may have an issue. You could post an owner maintenance that the cache is fine, or simply ignore them. I would say that a person (reviewer) reading the logs is most likely going to move to the next cache on the list.

 

In the end it is a tool to make people look at their cache pages. If it is not a problem, make note and move on. Too many seem to walk away and eventually forcing the reviewer to archive them (if it is warranted). I have many active cachers that receive this email, followed by me posting a note and weeks archiving it. That is a lot of work on my part for many caches.

 

In the end, if the cache is ok, say so in a log, and move on. Many other caches will have strings of problems that reviewers will have to deal with.

 

edit: adding links to other threads and cleaning up a little

Edited by hzoi
Link to comment

IMHO they need to add one additional option. Not an option to ignore the message; but an option to provide constructive feedback directly to the maintainer(s) of the algorithm. If they are not told of the FALSE POSITIVES, and why the CO believes it is a false positive, they will not know they need to tweak the algorithm or how. It is rather sad that TPTB don't solicit feedback from the very people who make their system possible.

I agree entirely. Even when I tried to report the false positive through HQ Support, I just got back a boilerplate response explaining why the emails are sent. Perhaps something was passed back down the chain to the developers, or perhaps not, I don't know.

 

I'd be interested to know what proactive steps a CO can take to stay one step ahead of the bot. It'd be nice if we could see the Health Score on our own caches, but I can understand HQs reluctance to do this as it might encourage armchair OM logs. With DNFs and time between finds key elements of the algorithm, what can COs do to keep abreast other than discouraging people from logging DNFs or avoiding placing caches that are unlikely to get many finders?

Until that option is added, let your reviewer know -- they are getting that feedback directly back to the algorithm hamster wranglers so the algorithm can be improved.

Link to comment

As cache owners, for the good of the whole community, we have to cope with a little bother. An email that might irritate a few owners that design their caches to get a lot of DNFs, doesn't outweigh the greater good.

 

The NM/OM feature initially confused and irritated me, but once I understood why it was implemented and how it worked I was sold on it as a good tool. The Needs Archived wording confused and the wording irritated me too, but the good it does far outweighs the awkward wording.

Link to comment

As cache owners, for the good of the whole community, we have to cope with a little bother. An email that might irritate a few owners that design their caches to get a lot of DNFs, doesn't outweigh the greater good.

 

The NM/OM feature initially confused and irritated me, but once I understood why it was implemented and how it worked I was sold on it as a good tool. The Needs Archived wording confused and the wording irritated me too, but the good it does far outweighs the awkward wording.

My cache wasn't designed to get a lot of DNFs; it wasn't designed to get any! The reason it got one, and only one, was that there were a bunch of unsavoury-looking muggles in what would've otherwise been the obvious place to start looking, so she came in from a different angle, found a spot about 10-15 metres off that sort of matched the hint and focused her search there. The bot didn't even give her time to have another go at it; the email went out just days after she logged the DNF.

 

The whole problem is the algorithm's focus on DNFs and time between finds. There are lots of reasons someone might log a DNF, most of which have nothing to do with cache maintenance (too many muggles, a sudden rain squall or, most commonly, just looking in the wrong place). All this is doing is discouraging searchers from logging DNFs and discouraging COs from hiding high D/T caches that get few finds. Is this what the greater good is about?

 

If there are outstanding NMs, sure, send off the reminder email, it might give someone a beneficial nudge. But a DNF, particularly if taken out of context, or even a "long time between finds" doesn't mean a cache needs immediate maintenance, disabling or archiving. The deductive step from DNFs to maintenance needed should be done by the searchers who have a much better picture of what's happening on the ground than any HQ bot does.

Link to comment

IMHO they need to add one additional option. Not an option to ignore the message; but an option to provide constructive feedback directly to the maintainer(s) of the algorithm. If they are not told of the FALSE POSITIVES, and why the CO believes it is a false positive, they will not know they need to tweak the algorithm or how. It is rather sad that TPTB don't solicit feedback from the very people who make their system possible.

I agree entirely. Even when I tried to report the false positive through HQ Support, I just got back a boilerplate response explaining why the emails are sent. Perhaps something was passed back down the chain to the developers, or perhaps not, I don't know.

I'd be interested to know what input you guys are thinking needs to get back to the developers. From where I'm sitting, the problem cases seem pretty obvious, so I assume they've already know about and have accepted those false positives without having to hear that the cases have actually come up.

 

I'd be interested to know what proactive steps a CO can take to stay one step ahead of the bot.

I assume you can post regular OMs. The fact that you wouldn't actually have to check on the cache highlights the problem with this kind of automated approach.

Link to comment

Unintended consequences.

 

Do you think I'm ever going to log a DNF on a remote mountain cache?

 

If it means sending the CO on an errand up a mountain?

 

If there's even a chance of that?

 

If there's even a hint of that in the forums?

 

We've been through this before; see other threads. I've seen a CO go up a full-size Rocky Mountain for one lousy DNF, and a half-hearted one at that. Check it or lose it, said the reviewer. Okay fine.

Link to comment

IMHO they need to add one additional option. Not an option to ignore the message; but an option to provide constructive feedback directly to the maintainer(s) of the algorithm. If they are not told of the FALSE POSITIVES, and why the CO believes it is a false positive, they will not know they need to tweak the algorithm or how. It is rather sad that TPTB don't solicit feedback from the very people who make their system possible.

I agree entirely. Even when I tried to report the false positive through HQ Support, I just got back a boilerplate response explaining why the emails are sent. Perhaps something was passed back down the chain to the developers, or perhaps not, I don't know.

I'd be interested to know what input you guys are thinking needs to get back to the developers. From where I'm sitting, the problem cases seem pretty obvious, so I assume they've already know about and have accepted those false positives without having to hear that the cases have actually come up.

Sorry, I'd just naively assumed that when the algorithm sent its email on the basis of one DNF on a cache that was only seven weeks old that this wasn't the way it was meant to work and that maybe someone might be interested in fixing what appeared to be a pretty obvious bug. No matter how you look at it, the circumstances that triggered the email had nothing to do with "cache health". Really, how many T5 caches are abandoned by their owners just weeks after publication?

 

I'd be interested to know what proactive steps a CO can take to stay one step ahead of the bot.

I assume you can post regular OMs. The fact that you wouldn't actually have to check on the cache highlights the problem with this kind of automated approach.

On a cache that might only get one or two finds a year (if that), logging an OM every couple of months would look daft (a bit like the town crier ringing his bell and yelling "It's 3am and all is well") and would be problematic for those using GPSrs that only store the last handful of logs. Most remote caches don't have mobile data access so you can't easily scroll down the potentially long list of armchair OMs to find the last Found It log, and as a searcher I'd be pretty peeved by that.

Link to comment

I have a bunch of little indicator lights on the dashboard of my car. I'm not sure what all of them mean, but I know that when one of them lights up, it means I better pay attention and have the issue, whatever it is, addressed. I know if these little automated indicator lights weren't there, or malfunctioned somehow, chances are things would be much worse.

 

I notice that a few people don't pay attention to these little indicator lights as well as others. Sometimes I see the vehicles of these owners abandoned on the side of the road, just waiting for the Highway Patrol to stick a warning sticker on it, and eventually have the mess towed away.

 

I don't see an issue with Groundspeak responding to the Community about the growing problem of abandoned caches. If they want to install some automated system to facilitate improving the quality of the game, then that seems like a good thing.

 

**Disclaimer: I've had one of those emails on one of my "lonely" caches. I responded on my Listing page, and haven't been bothered since.

Link to comment

Sorry, I'd just naively assumed that when the algorithm sent its email on the basis of one DNF on a cache that was only seven weeks old that this wasn't the way it was meant to work and that maybe someone might be interested in fixing what appeared to be a pretty obvious bug. No matter how you look at it, the circumstances that triggered the email had nothing to do with "cache health". Really, how many T5 caches are abandoned by their owners just weeks after publication?

OK, thanks. I thought I might be overlooking something. I can't imagine anyone developing this algorithm could overlook the possibility of a cache so distant that it's only visited ever year or two, but I understand the urge to send them an actual example when that happens. Personally, I'd think of it more as a very reasonable complaint than as constructive feedback, but whatever.

 

On a cache that might only get one or two finds a year (if that), logging an OM every couple of months would look daft (a bit like the town crier ringing his bell and yelling "It's 3am and all is well") and would be problematic for those using GPSrs that only store the last handful of logs. Most remote caches don't have mobile data access so you can't easily scroll down the potentially long list of armchair OMs to find the last Found It log, and as a searcher I'd be pretty peeved by that.

Yes, there are downsides, but they aren't really a big deal compared to the cache being eliminated, don't you think? But, really, I seriously doubt anyone's going to hike 10 miles to a cache and only then look at the past find logs. But if the CO's worried about it, he can just delete the previous OM when he posts the new one.

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...