Groundspeaks Computer monitoring caches

[+Rustynails]

Recently I received this from Groundspeak.

 

Hello rustynails.,

 

Your geocache, Raspberry Town (GC6XXDC), 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

 

It looks like HQ is using a computer program to monitor caches. The cache in question is a puzzle cache using a field puzzle and chirp. By definition puzzles are puzzling until it's solved. HQ's computer thinks this is a P&G. The computer program is obviously flawed and needs to be fixed. They should let a human decide if there's a problem instead of a computer finding problems where none exist. Anyone else being harassed by HQ's computer?

[+wmpastor]

Don't let the computer "evaluation" bother you. Check it or not, as appropriate, indicate everything's okay, and move forward. It's a reminder or a caution - some people need it and some don't. The good news is that it may generate corrections where needed (while slightly irritating others). But no big deal - it just says that your cache *may* need attention.

[+Manville Possum]

Anyone else being harassed by HQ's computer?

 

It's really the hamsters that run the servers.

[+cerberus1]

This was explained in the Release Notes last September, with a few threads on the subject.

Might have been in error, but it's just a reminder, just in case, and no real issue if you do maintenance and/or communicate on your cache page.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Reminds me of a tick in the woods. Who know why the tick attacked you, and no one else in the group. The tick may have Lyme Disease, or not. Who knows?

The parameters are not consistant. Pick on this cache, but not that one. Who knows why?

Just a reminder that there are ticks in the woods.

[Pup Patrol]

Recently I received this from Groundspeak.

 

Hello rustynails.,

 

Your geocache, Raspberry Town (GC6XXDC), 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

 

It looks like HQ is using a computer program to monitor caches. The cache in question is a puzzle cache using a field puzzle and chirp. By definition puzzles are puzzling until it's solved. HQ's computer thinks this is a P&G. The computer program is obviously flawed and needs to be fixed. They should let a human decide if there's a problem instead of a computer finding problems where none exist. Anyone else being harassed by HQ's computer?

 

Did you post any comments in the Release Notes thread when it was posted back in September of 2015?

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

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

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache ownership: A long-term relationship

4.10. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

 

 

B.

[+Rustynails]

Recently I received this from Groundspeak.

 

Hello rustynails.,

 

Your geocache, Raspberry Town (GC6XXDC), 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

 

It looks like HQ is using a computer program to monitor caches. The cache in question is a puzzle cache using a field puzzle and chirp. By definition puzzles are puzzling until it's solved. HQ's computer thinks this is a P&G. The computer program is obviously flawed and needs to be fixed. They should let a human decide if there's a problem instead of a computer finding problems where none exist. Anyone else being harassed by HQ's computer?

 

Did you post any comments in the Release Notes thread when it was posted back in September of 2015?

 

Release Notes - September 8, 2015

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

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache ownership: A long-term relationship

4.10. Maintenance Emails from Geocaching HQ

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713

 

 

B.

 

2015? Never knew about the computer monitoring until I got the recent notice.

[+TriciaG]

It looks like HQ is using a computer program to monitor caches. The cache in question is a puzzle cache using a field puzzle and chirp. By definition puzzles are puzzling until it's solved. HQ's computer thinks this is a P&G. The computer program is obviously flawed and needs to be fixed. They should let a human decide if there's a problem instead of a computer finding problems where none exist. Anyone else being harassed by HQ's computer?

COs can get an email generated by a computer algorithm. The algorithm isn't going to cover all cases perfectly. Yours very well could be one of the anomalies.

 

If you know your cache is OK, you can ignore the email.

 

The email (or the computer, actually) do NOT take any action on your cache. Any action - temporarily disabling, etc. - is done by a human, and one that looks at the listing and uses their best judgment. So there is no black mark against your listing that you have to worry about.

 

Oh, but some reviewers are dogs, so maybe the reviewer actions are NOT all done by humans.

 

See this thread on this same issue: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340313&view=findpost&p=5627411

[Keystone]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

 

Since the notice was sent to the CO, there's been several more finds. (Yay!)

 

Lately, the Community Volunteer Reviewers have seen several examples where fairly recent publications quickly resulted in a "might need maintenance" email. We regularly feed back these observations to Geocaching HQ so that the algorithm can be fine-tuned.

[+Touchstone]

Old news rusty. Looks like you had some *confusion* going on with that Listing around the Holidays. Looks like you responded to it, but still got snagged in the sweep somehow. Bad timing, bad luck, who knows. On the bright side, there's been a marked drop off in threads related to Groundspeak's inaction regarding slacker cache owners and the epidemic of ill maintained caches.

[+barefootjeff]

If you know your cache is OK, you can ignore the email.

 

The email (or the computer, actually) do NOT take any action on your cache. Any action - temporarily disabling, etc. - is done by a human, and one that looks at the listing and uses their best judgment. So there is no black mark against your listing that you have to worry about.

 

I'm not sure if that's entirely true. At the very end of the Help Centre article, it implies that if the email is ignored and "it appears the cache still needs maintenance", a Community Volunteer Reviewer may follow up. Lots of mays and maybes in there, but it at least hints that perhaps a flag is set somewhere to alert the reviewers that an email has been sent and to keep half an eye on it. Further correspondence I had with my similar incident a couple of weeks back suggests that, in the case where it's only a DNF that triggered the email, whatever is set is cleared if a subsequent Found It log comes in.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

 

I would hope that the algorithm isn't as simple as comparing the number (and frequency) of DNFs to Found it logs. The difficulty rating of the cache *has* to be factored in well.

 

I would argue that cache rated 3.5 or higher *should* have as many DNFs as found it logs. The knowledge book page on D/T ratings states that a cache 3.5 or higher may be quite to extremely difficult to find. At a 4 star rating it indicates that it might require multiple visits to find. If cachers are logging correctly that would to mean one or more DNF logs before a Found it log is posted. A CO may decide not to place a difficult hide to avoid getting nagged when the the DNFs start piling up, and instead just place easy finds and may even allow throwdowns so everyone gets a find rather than posting a DNF.

 

[+Rustynails]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

 

Since the notice was sent to the CO, there's been several more finds. (Yay!)

 

Lately, the Community Volunteer Reviewers have seen several examples where fairly recent publications quickly resulted in a "might need maintenance" email. We regularly feed back these observations to Geocaching HQ so that the algorithm can be fine-tuned.

 

Once again it's a PUZZLE CACHE not a P&G. It's going to get a few dnfs and It's been checked more than a few times. The computer program failed to consider the past maintenance and the fact it's a puzzle.

 

Groundspeak you have gotten notification your computer program needs maintenance but failed to fix it. They should now archive it. Practice what you preach.

[Keystone]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

Emphasis added.

[+Touchstone]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

 

Since the notice was sent to the CO, there's been several more finds. (Yay!)

 

Lately, the Community Volunteer Reviewers have seen several examples where fairly recent publications quickly resulted in a "might need maintenance" email. We regularly feed back these observations to Geocaching HQ so that the algorithm can be fine-tuned.

 

Once again it's a PUZZLE CACHE not a P&G. It's going to get a few dnfs and It's been checked more than a few times. The computer program failed to consider the past maintenance and the fact it's a puzzle.

 

Groundspeak you have gotten notification your computer program needs maintenance but failed to fix it. They should now archive it. Practice what you preach.

Actually, since none of the Notes you posted on your Listing are logged as Owner Maintenance visits on the Listing page, I'd characterize the *fail* on the cache owner part. Reading through the log entries a bit more carefully, I'm struck with how things progressed, and I'm left with the impression that the cache design required several updates in order to make some coherent sense. I'm not usually a strong advocate of "Beta Testing" caches, but this one might have benefited from such an approach before Publication.

[+Rustynails]

If folks are curious, the "might need maintenance" email was sent on December 30th. At that time there had been three straight DNF's, plus one earlier DNF, and a total of only two finds in the cache's first 18 days of activity. That record of finds vs. DNF's (along with other factors) was enough to trigger the Health Score algorithm.

 

Since the notice was sent to the CO, there's been several more finds. (Yay!)

 

Lately, the Community Volunteer Reviewers have seen several examples where fairly recent publications quickly resulted in a "might need maintenance" email. We regularly feed back these observations to Geocaching HQ so that the algorithm can be fine-tuned.

 

Once again it's a PUZZLE CACHE not a P&G. It's going to get a few dnfs and It's been checked more than a few times. The computer program failed to consider the past maintenance and the fact it's a puzzle.

 

Groundspeak you have gotten notification your computer program needs maintenance but failed to fix it. They should now archive it. Practice what you preach.

Actually, since none of the Notes you posted on your Listing are logged as Owner Maintenance visits on the Listing page, I'd characterize the *fail* on the cache owner part. Reading through the log entries a bit more carefully, I'm struck with how things progressed, and I'm left with the impression that the cache design required several updates in order to make some coherent sense. I'm not usually a strong advocate of "Beta Testing" caches, but this one might have benefited from such an approach before Publication.

 

It's a PUZZLE CACHE Not a P&G. Emphasis added. Only hints were added, nothing else was changed.

[BlueRajah]

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.

[+TriciaG]

It's a PUZZLE CACHE Not a P&G. Emphasis added. Only hints were added, nothing else was changed.

Yes, it is a puzzle cache. But you said:

Once again it's a PUZZLE CACHE not a P&G. It's going to get a few dnfs and It's been checked more than a few times. The computer program failed to consider the past maintenance and the fact it's a puzzle.

How can the computer program consider past maintenance, if you have not LOGGED it as maintenance? The computer won't read the contents of your notes and think, "Oh, this guy is maintaining the cache, but posts Notes instead of Owner Maintenance logs."

[+barefootjeff]

It's a PUZZLE CACHE Not a P&G. Emphasis added. Only hints were added, nothing else was changed.

 

Ha ha, mine was a T5 multi with one find and one DNF at the time it was pinged. Apparently it was the fact that it had only been found once in its seven weeks of life, then the DNF, that triggered the email. I wonder how many finds a T5 cache is supposed to get in that time?

[+dubidubno]

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.

 

According to Groundspeak, those alternatives are not options. Please read the Help Center article at http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713. It clearly states "These are your options if you receive one of these emails", listing only three options: (1) visit the cache, (2) disable and visit later, and (3) archive.

[Keystone]

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."

[+Viajero Perdido]

Please read the Help Center article at http://support.Groun...kb.page&id=713. It clearly states "These are your options if you receive one of these emails", listing only three options: (1) visit the cache, (2) disable and visit later, and (3) archive.

Yes, they're clearly missing (4) Make a judgement call that, given the nature of the hide, a single DNF does not require a maintenance visit.

 

Seems we had a long angsty thread about exactly that: mountain-top caches being threatened with archival after a single DNF. Those of us who dream about mountain-top caches in forgotten places get really squirrelly about the subject of auto-archival... (Do not poke the squirrel; I bite.)

[+narcissa]

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.

 

According to Groundspeak, those alternatives are not options. Please read the Help Center article at http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=713. It clearly states "These are your options if you receive one of these emails", listing only three options: (1) visit the cache, (2) disable and visit later, and (3) archive.

 

A polite and reasonable discussion with a reviewer and/or Groundspeak is always an option.