Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Zor

Have the guidelines changed for listing of events?

Recommended Posts

A recent discussion on one of our local association forums came up on what seems to have changed (for our area anyway) with regards to how reviewers are now perceiving event caches. A lot of our local cachers have been having a terrible time trying to get events listed.

 

In more than one instance, we've been denied event listings claiming that we were "event stacking". Yes, the events were on the same day but were completely different events (a wing nite, and a bonfire) by two completely different cachers at two completely different locations. The first event was published fine but when the second event went into the queue, it was denied because we were "stacking" events. Yet weeks before, we had a lunch, CITO, Flash Mob, and dinner event all on the same day and there was no issue with that. Does there not need to be some consistency?

 

We also saw a change in how events can be named. We have a monthly breakfast event and apparently now, we can't include a single word from the name of the restaurant we go to in the name, yet we've been doing that now for almost 3 years. Can someone explain to me how after doing something for 3 years it's now considered against the rules? I don't see that listed in the event guidelines.

 

I know it says that publishing of a previous cache does not set precedence, but it's kind of hard to have that in there when month after month, year after year, things are published fine, and then without notice it seems, somehow it's different.

 

Lastly, we have other events which are now being denied because they were considered organized hunts. Folks getting together to have a chat, food, and then go hiking after the event. This is considered an organized hunt? I'm also a bit confused about how an event cache can't be listed to have geocachers come together to go caching. I would think that we'd WANT to get folks together.

 

Regardless, has anyone else experienced issues in getting events listed?

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry but what you list as 'new' issues with events sounds like the standard practice for a very long while in my experience and nothing new.

 

Glad to see they are being enforced more universally.

 

The restaurant thing is clearly under the commercial listing guideline. The 'stacking' issue falls under an event being able to stand on its own merits and not tied to another event. All long in the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have any personal experience with the "stacking" issue, but the commerical guideline has pretty much been enforced for us in the same way -- you can basically mention the name of the restaurant in the cache listing and that's it. Even then it has to just be a mention -- no links, no promotion, etc.

 

And, the organized hunt thing is the same way. The guideance we've been given is basically this:

 

"If you are interested, there are other caches in the area you can hunt." = OK

"Let's meet and make plans for doing some caching afterwards." = Deny

 

Given how many events take place at commerical establishments and involve people making plans to cache, they can be very tricky guidelines to work with. As Starbrand said, it sounds like you're now being subjected to the same standards we've been working with for quite awhile now.

Share this post


Link to post
A recent discussion on one of our local association forums... Yes, the events were on the same day but were completely different events (a wing nite, and a bonfire) by two completely different cachers at two completely different locations.
Sorry but what you list as 'new' issues with events sounds like the standard practice for a very long while in my experience and nothing new... The 'stacking' issue falls under an event being able to stand on its own merits and not tied to another event. All long in the guidelines.

I'm not a reviewer, but I would have thought that two different kinds of events listed by two different cachers at two different locations would have qualified as events that would stand on their own merits. There may be more to the story that I'm not seeing, but it's not 100% obvious to me what else the listing cachers should have done to establish independence.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay the mention of the restaurant in the title I understand, the nod nod wink wink mention of doing something after the event I can kind of see... but event stacking? That's a new one.

 

Two different locations, one in the morning, one in the evening. I don't get it. What are the geographical/chronological proximity guidelines for stacking events?

Share this post


Link to post

From another thread:

The second was declined... also because there was another event in the same town that same day and aparently its called event stacking. The other person one was a breakfast event in the morning and mine was a evening supper event at a different location...

This is a stricter interpretation than the last time we encountered this locally. A caching friend and I organized a puzzle solving workshop in a theater, which I listed, and afterwards in a different location (a pub) my friend submitted a meet and greet event. We intended them to be different events (for a variety of reasons that aren't important here, but that weren't related to numbers pumping). That said, they were undeniably related events - we were both instructing at the puzzle workshop, for example, and we did plan to encourage attendees to head to the pub with us and meet up with other cachers. This is the message we got, last November:

 

I noticed your event is the same day as and immediately following another event. We are not allowed to publish piggyback events.

 

If you could move your event to another day that would be great and I could publish it for you but I can not publish your event the same day as the other event.

We had never run into that before, but it seemed (and seems) reasonable - like I said, they were definitely related, and we weren't hiding that.

 

This is the first time I've heard of unrelated events listed by different cachers at different times of day in different places, being considered unpublishable. I might be reading ZeMartelo's email wrong or maybe I don't know the whole story, but I got the impression that there was no connection between ZeMartelo and the other cacher who had listed an event that day (is this true?).

 

Maybe like the 528-foot radius, the first person to list an event on a particular day within a certain radius (25 miles?) can block other events.

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I can see where back-to-back events could, in some instances, cause problems and hard feelings. Just as an extreme illustration, let's say one well-known cacher and a newbie cacher create back-to-back events in the same general area, same day. Experienced cacher gets many attendees, newbie cacher sits there alone for the entire time. Many cachers only have time/energy for one event per day. They chose the event hosted by somebody they knew.

 

Purely hypothetical, but I think you can see. Another example could be made of two cachers with some hostility toward each other trying to compete with each other by hosting back-to-back events.

Share this post


Link to post

I once saw 2 events hosted by separate cachers at separate locations (6 miles apart and 4 hours apart) denied - it seemed clear from the descriptions that the same basic set of cachers was intended to go to both events. It wasn't called 'stacking' - just was explained that it seemed more like 2 parts of a whole and not 2 distinctly different events. That was many years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

Weren't there just multiple events in the vicinity (both in time and location) during the GWS weekend? I seem to recall at least 3 events on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July.

Share this post


Link to post

Weren't there just multiple events in the vicinity (both in time and location) during the GWS weekend? I seem to recall at least 3 events on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July.

 

Yup, in fact one of them was in the exact same location as GW9 and only an hour after the official mega had finished. They had different names and were "different" in their own ways but were in the exact same spot and anyone who was left over from the mega would have gone to it. So how is that allowed yet multiple different events spread out throughout the whole day is considered stacking?

Share this post


Link to post
I once saw 2 events hosted by separate cachers at separate locations (6 miles apart and 4 hours apart) denied - it seemed clear from the descriptions that the same basic set of cachers was intended to go to both events. It wasn't called 'stacking' - just was explained that it seemed more like 2 parts of a whole and not 2 distinctly different events. That was many years ago.
Hmm... That seems to conflict with the published guidelines, which focus on whether each event can stand on its own merits as an event, and not on how much overlap there is between who is expected to attend the events: "For geocaching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines."

 

Perhaps it's time for Groundspeak to update the published guidelines to more closely reflect the enforced guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Event stacking didn't seem to be an issue surrounding GW9. There were events all weekend that were all held because they surrounded the official event in both time and distance.

Share this post


Link to post

I once saw 2 events hosted by separate cachers at separate locations (6 miles apart and 4 hours apart) denied - it seemed clear from the descriptions that the same basic set of cachers was intended to go to both events. It wasn't called 'stacking' - just was explained that it seemed more like 2 parts of a whole and not 2 distinctly different events. That was many years ago.

 

We have had breakfast events and pub events on the same day around here. The whole idea was to cache in between the events before reconvening at the pub.

Share this post


Link to post
The 'stacking' issue falls under an event being able to stand on its own merits and not tied to another event.

Not in the case cited. The OP was talking about two entirely different, stand alone events, hosted by two different cachers, at two entirely different locations. Neither event was even remotely "tied" to the other. This sounds more like a case of a Reviewer inventing their own guidelines. :unsure:

 

Perhaps the Reviewers could stick to enforcing the real guidelines, rather than imposing their own aesthetics on the community? While I might benefit personally by having a Reviewer who decided they didn't like film cans, and refused to publish any cache claiming to use one, the vast majority of cachers would not benefit.

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post

Been smacked down here in N.W. Calif. a couple of times which mirrors the experiences of others.

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh another aspect of the Proximity Guidelines >>> only in the TIME DIMENSION as opposed to the space continuum. LOL, LOL, LOL

 

On a more serious note: What on earth is the rationale ... I am baffled.

Share this post


Link to post

Been smacked down here in N.W. Calif. a couple of times which mirrors the experiences of others.

 

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh another aspect of the Proximity Guidelines >>> only in the TIME DIMENSION as opposed to the space continuum. LOL, LOL, LOL

 

On a more serious note: What on earth is the rationale ... I am baffled.

 

Taken to the EXTREME; More than one cache per cacher per day would be stacking and therefore out of compliance with "the guidelines" >>> LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, that sounds sorta' weird if everything is being presented 100% accurately. I guess, as someone who really isn't into events, I kinda' feel like they should probably get some leeway when in doubt considering events are incredibly temporary compared to other cache types.

 

I mean, a "stacked" event doesn't really seem to hurt much, and these events don't really sound "stacked" in the first place.

Edited by d+n.s

Share this post


Link to post

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied.

Share this post


Link to post

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied.

Sorry, disagree.

 

Cacher A thinks it would be neat to have a breakfast get together. Grabs a GC #, writes up the event and submits it. Cacher B, not knowing cacher A already queued up a breakfast event, thinks a dinner event would be neat, grabs a GC #, writes up the event and submits it. Now, based solely on the GC # sequence cacher B has his event denied since it is "stacking". Both are independent, both are stand alone, neither depends on the other with the exception of the cacher population. So simply based on the GC # sequence cacher B is denied. Or would you deny cacher A since that one is earlier? And what does it matter that the attending population is basically the same? Does it matter that the attending population is the basically the same for any event at anytime in this area? Sorry, I just don't agree.

 

If this is the case and the denial will be based on GC # sequence then I can see folks running out and hoarding GC #'s simply to post events and hope that their numbers trumps any other numbers in the area.

 

We could even stretch this farther. If an event is posted in one town or city you can no longer post another event in the same town or city, ever. heavens forbid that might be stacking events on different days. And in the rural area you live you could postulate that since the attending population will be basically the same for any subsequent events, regardless of timing, that all events after the first one should be denied because your stacking events.

 

What I think is that we did not get to page 4 on the OP and other cases cited.

Share this post


Link to post

"Event stacking" was going to be a problem for the most recent Spring Fling, apparently. Pre- and post-Fling get-togethers weren't going to be allowed. But the issues got worked out, obviously, and post- and pre-Fling events were published.

 

I think something about cachers could only attend ONE of the events was a crucial deciding factor. I don't know for sure, since I wasn't involved in the backroom discussions.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I think "intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers" is too subjective. Except for obviously abusive cases (e.g., "101 Events 13:00", "101 Events 13:01",... "101 Events 14:40"), how could you demonstrate that two events are "intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers"? For that matter, how could you demonstrate that two events are NOT "intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers"?

 

Besides, that isn't what's being described. What's being described is the denial of events that just happen to be on the same day, in different locations that are near each other (for some unspecified definition of "near"):

"completely different events (a wing nite, and a bonfire)"

"a puzzle solving workshop in a theater, [and] a meet and greet event [in a pub]"

"2 events hosted by separate cachers at separate locations (6 miles apart and 4 hours apart)"

Share this post


Link to post

The MnGCA was hosting a Pizza event GC2MAFM. Pizza was allowed in the name, but the review would not a allow a picture of pizza on the cache page. The person ended up with a empty pizza tray to get it pubhished.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't udnerstand. 10 miles of micros .1 of a mile apart is totally cool becuase of the word "please" in the guidelines but two events on the same day with an 8+ hour time difference is not?

 

How does that even begin to make any sense at all?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't udnerstand. 10 miles of micros .1 of a mile apart is totally cool becuase of the word "please" in the guidelines but two events on the same day with an 8+ hour time difference is not?

 

How does that even begin to make any sense at all?

It is to stop the power trail of flash mob events dead in their tracks.

Share this post


Link to post

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied.

Sorry, disagree.

 

Cacher A thinks it would be neat to have a breakfast get together. Grabs a GC #, writes up the event and submits it. Cacher B, not knowing cacher A already queued up a breakfast event, thinks a dinner event would be neat, grabs a GC #, writes up the event and submits it. Now, based solely on the GC # sequence cacher B has his event denied since it is "stacking". Both are independent, both are stand alone, neither depends on the other with the exception of the cacher population. So simply based on the GC # sequence cacher B is denied. Or would you deny cacher A since that one is earlier? And what does it matter that the attending population is basically the same? Does it matter that the attending population is the basically the same for any event at anytime in this area? Sorry, I just don't agree.

 

If this is the case and the denial will be based on GC # sequence then I can see folks running out and hoarding GC #'s simply to post events and hope that their numbers trumps any other numbers in the area.

 

We could even stretch this farther. If an event is posted in one town or city you can no longer post another event in the same town or city, ever. heavens forbid that might be stacking events on different days. And in the rural area you live you could postulate that since the attending population will be basically the same for any subsequent events, regardless of timing, that all events after the first one should be denied because your stacking events.

 

What I think is that we did not get to page 4 on the OP and other cases cited.

 

Apparently you missed the bolded red part of my opinion as your theoretical situation is well outside of that parameter.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't udnerstand. 10 miles of micros .1 of a mile apart is totally cool becuase of the word "please" in the guidelines but two events on the same day with an 8+ hour time difference is not?

 

How does that even begin to make any sense at all?

It is to stop the power trail of flash mob events dead in their tracks.

 

I guess my point is that if a film can .1 of a mile down the road x 1500 is "unique enough" to be listed as an individual cache then I don't see how one additional event in a single day is not "unique enough" to be listed as an individual event.

 

The only difference I see is that the .1 mile is in the guidelines and it's anybody's guess as to what the chronological proximity guidelines are because they don't exist.

 

It's like GS is saying in one case- get all the finds you want, it's not a competition, there are no winners, knock yourself out, play it your way! But in the other case- You want TWO Attended Logs??!! TWO?!?! NO SOUP FOR YOU!!

 

So which is it? Do the numbers matter or not?

Share this post


Link to post

In January, I hosted a pizza lunch event, mentioned on the cache page that there were lots of caches in the area, linked to a couple of bookmark lists of area caches (including one that I made just for the event) and mentioned that some of us would be getting together for a hike before the event. Arrangements for the hike were made in the local forum. I mentioned the restaurant name on the event cache page but didn't make a big deal of it or call the event Lunch at Luigi's or anything like that. In that case, the lunch Meet 'n' Greet was the event, although the hike in a snowstorm was more fun.

 

I'm hosting a hike on September 10. There are a few (4-5) caches along the hike route, but I also made a Facebook page and linked to the various bookmark lists of area caches. The hike is the event; the log book will be available at the lunch stop/turnaround point; not at the trailhead.

 

There was no problem getting either event published.

Share this post


Link to post

My own personal opinion...

intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them

Sorry, disagree.

 

Apparently you missed the bolded red part of my opinion

I'll have to side with JHolly on this one.

How can Groundspeak determine that two events, with substantially different objectives, miles apart, at different times of the day, created by two different cachers, with no references to the opposing event, are "intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them".

 

Two hypothetical events:

1 ) Pancake breakfast at 8:00am, at DeLeon Springs State Park, created by me.

2 ) Pizza dinner at 6:00pm, at, (shudder), Chuck E Cheese, in Deland, created by BillyBob.

The only commonality is that they are both meet, eat & greets.

 

The 10 hour time difference will target those cachers who are able to free up a couple hours in their day, during those specific time frames. Those with previous engagements, (job, church, social functions, family duties, etc), during one time frame, would be unable to attend both.

 

The 6 mile geographic distance will target those folks who are limited on how far they are able/willing to drive, for an event. While most of the cachers who live in the general area of both events would probably not have any distance based issues, those on the fringes might feel the extra drive is just too far, especially for those who are strangers in a strange land, so to speak, and face the options of either driving back home, then driving back out for the second event, or twiddling their thumbs for 8 hours or so, while possibly hunting for caches in unfamiliar territory.

 

The difference in menu will target those folks with dietary preferences and/or unique dietary needs, such as the cacher who loves pancakes but hates pizza, or vice versa.

 

The venue will target those folks who abhor the concept of paying for caching, as the state park charges an entrance fee, on top of any monies collected for the consumption of pancakes. The venue will also target those folks who appreciate calm, peaceful conversation, which is all but impossible at a Chuck E Cheese, where loud sound effects and screaming rug rats are the order of the day.

 

According to the guidelines, there should be no problem publishing both of them.

The relevant text?

"For geocaching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines."

 

Schmoozing whilst dining on pancakes, in the early morning hours, in a beautiful setting, certainly stands on its own merits. As does schmoozing while wolfing down horrible pizza, in the evening, in a hellish environment.

 

Methinks the Reviewers should stick to enforcing the existing guidelines and quit inventing their own.

Edited by Clan Riffster

Share this post


Link to post

The opinion I formulated above needs to include all parts and not specific subsets of it.

 

Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events. But if it fits what I stated - then 1 or more of them should be denied - IMHO.

 

Just to recap:

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events.

Kewl! Thanx for clearing that up. I'd like your thoughts on what kind of things might be evaluated on the two event pages to determine if they are closely related. Obviously, one event making mention of the other would show a significant relation. Being hosted by the same cacher might show a significant relation. Having similar themes, such as "Pirates Dining # 1" and "Pirates Dining # 2" would show a significant relation.

 

What else? In your opinion, what key statements should be avoided for folks publishing events in close proximity on the same day?

 

If the pancake and pizza events mentioned above reached a Reviewer's computer, what, in your opinion, should the hosts avoid in their descriptions to get them published?

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events.

Kewl! Thanx for clearing that up. I'd like your thoughts on what kind of things might be evaluated on the two event pages to determine if they are closely related. Obviously, one event making mention of the other would show a significant relation. Being hosted by the same cacher might show a significant relation. Having similar themes, such as "Pirates Dining # 1" and "Pirates Dining # 2" would show a significant relation.

 

What else? In your opinion, what key statements should be avoided for folks publishing events in close proximity on the same day?

 

If the pancake and pizza events mentioned above reached a Reviewer's computer, what, in your opinion, should the hosts avoid in their descriptions to get them published?

In my mind - statement's like "As long as you are in town for xxx Breakfast Event - Stick around and join us for dinner as well at the yyy event"

or

"When you get done with the XXX event - drive on over to the YYY event - just 3 blocks over".

or

"Get 3 events in one day by jumping between the xxx park, the yyy campground, and the mall parking lot event"

 

All fairly obvious statements that you are just extending a single event in some fashion. Avoid any language at all mentioning another event.

 

I've seen a lot of events over the years that were obvious close tie-ins with another cacher/event already scheduled.

Share this post


Link to post

The opinion I formulated above needs to include all parts and not specific subsets of it.

 

Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events. But if it fits what I stated - then 1 or more of them should be denied - IMHO.

 

Just to recap:

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied

That criteria highly subjective. I can see two events with a few miles of each other on the same day in a small community drawing different types of geocachers. To paint them with the same broad brush is just plain wrong. And if the reviewer is presented with two events on the same day in the general proximity of each other, how does he choose which one can be published and which one is denied? By the time of day the event will be held? fail. By the sequential GC #? fail. By who bought him coffee and a doughnut lately? fail. Then we have the problem of proximity. Close in Wyoming or Nevada is a bit farther than close in Nebraska. Extend that thinking to caches. Your small town already has a cache. No other caches can be published because essentially the same people will find both caches.

 

I still say we have not heard page 4 on the OP and other examples.

Share this post


Link to post

We have two events in close proximity to each other here on the same day by the same person I believe. Close proximity here would probably qualify as across a large city from each other but it's pretty much neighboring communities. Both were published. And for the most part the same crowd is going to go to both events if able (one in the morning and one in the evening). I'm only going to one if able. I know some others whose schedule will only allow for one.

 

Our caching community is very small here and we don't have events often at all so this is kind of a neat anomaly for us.

Share this post


Link to post

The opinion I formulated above needs to include all parts and not specific subsets of it.

 

Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events. But if it fits what I stated - then 1 or more of them should be denied - IMHO.

 

Just to recap:

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied

That criteria highly subjective. I can see two events with a few miles of each other on the same day in a small community drawing different types of geocachers. To paint them with the same broad brush is just plain wrong. And if the reviewer is presented with two events on the same day in the general proximity of each other, how does he choose which one can be published and which one is denied? By the time of day the event will be held? fail. By the sequential GC #? fail. By who bought him coffee and a doughnut lately? fail. Then we have the problem of proximity. Close in Wyoming or Nevada is a bit farther than close in Nebraska. Extend that thinking to caches. Your small town already has a cache. No other caches can be published because essentially the same people will find both caches.

 

I still say we have not heard page 4 on the OP and other examples.

 

As stated - just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Just to recap:

My own personal opinion which is heavily biased towards my own thinking and my VERY rural caching area (small town thinking) with very few events is that:

 

multiple events on the same day in close physical proximity that are intended to draw substantially the same set of Geocachers to them simply because the event(s) are on the same day and in the same area and all the cachers have already gathered ---> should be denied

That criteria highly subjective.... Close in Wyoming or Nevada is a bit farther than close in Nebraska.

Subjective isn't always bad. As you point out, "close" can vary depending on what part of the world they are being held. Making those tough calls is why the volunteers get paid the big bucks. :D

 

I can see two events with[in] a few miles of each other on the same day in a small community drawing different types of geocachers. To paint them with the same broad brush is just plain wrong.

That's why subjective guidelines sometimes can be good. An objective guideline is more likely to paint them with the same broad brush.

 

And if the reviewer is presented with two events on the same day in the general proximity of each other, how does he choose which one can be published and which one is denied?

One possibility might be to publish the event that was submitted first.

Share this post


Link to post
In my mind - statement's like...<snipped for brevity>

Agreed, agreed, agreed. All three statements are perfect examples of what the guidelines specifically prohibit. I'm just not sure that the events which the OP was discussing met those standards. Right now, we only have one side of the story. I keep expecting a classic Keystone entry, pointing out that statements similar to what you described were present in both event listings, but until then, I'll have to remain neutral, siding with the generality that events should not be denied based simply on proximity and time, since the guidelines don't state that.

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously the only way Groundspeak could EVER tell the two events are closely related and fit the criteria of my opinion is by what is stated in the description(s) of the events.

Kewl! Thanx for clearing that up. I'd like your thoughts on what kind of things might be evaluated on the two event pages to determine if they are closely related. Obviously, one event making mention of the other would show a significant relation. Being hosted by the same cacher might show a significant relation. Having similar themes, such as "Pirates Dining # 1" and "Pirates Dining # 2" would show a significant relation.

 

What else? In your opinion, what key statements should be avoided for folks publishing events in close proximity on the same day?

 

If the pancake and pizza events mentioned above reached a Reviewer's computer, what, in your opinion, should the hosts avoid in their descriptions to get them published?

 

What's that you say? Forks and knives at BOTH events!

Share this post


Link to post

Methinks the Reviewers should stick to enforcing the existing guidelines and quit inventing their own.

 

I like to believe it's probably more complicated than that.

Share this post


Link to post

Methinks the Reviewers should stick to enforcing the existing guidelines and quit inventing their own.

 

I like to believe it's probably more complicated than that.

You are probably right. I was kinda hoping a Reviewer might chime in and offer their thoughts, as regards the current text of the guidelines, on two completely unrelated events, on the same day, in the same geographic area. Because I am not a Reviewer, I have no clue what goes on behind the scenes. All I can see is the guidelines we are asked to follow, and the OP's example, which, on its face, appears to follow those guidelines. I'm seeing four possible reasons for this, in order of likelihood:

 

  1. The OP is either fibbing, exaggerating or misunderstanding the incident.
  2. There are new guidelines which have not been published yet, which the Reviewers have been asked to enforce.
  3. I'm a complete dunderhead, and utterly failed at comprehending the guidelines I read
  4. A Reviewer is pushing his own private agenda, inventing guidelines to force the game to match his biased aesthetics.

 

At this point, only a Reviewer can provide an answer.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the harm in event stacking anyway?

The rule was adopted much like the ban on ALRs when the practice was abused.

 

I can recall an event that you could attend 4 times. If you showed up early to help setup there was a coffee and donuts event. Then the main event in the park. Right in the middle of the event was a flash mob on the other side of the park (about .2 miles away). And then there was a CITO for those who stayed after and helped clean up. The reviewers got tired of publishing four events when there was really only one.

 

For the most part, the reviewers here have been pretty generous allowing a breakfast or dinner event along with some activity event during the day nearby. But other reviewers are apparently more strict on what they consider stacking. My guess is that in some areas there are concerns about event burnout. If you live in an area with several events going on the same day that doesn't really have enough geocachers to support this, I suppose the reviewers are applying a "proximity" rule to spread the events out over time. If this is the rationale that is now being used for denying multiple events, it ought to be explained by a reviewer or a lackey, and perhaps the guidelines should be updated. Otherwise I'd agree, if it's not obvious stacking like the example above why not approve the events?

Share this post


Link to post

What is the harm in event stacking anyway?

 

Harm as in physical, none. The harm comes when it is abused to the point where it becomes absurd and misses the point of events. I like the rule because I think events are one of the best things about geocaching and I don't want to see them morph into simply another way to rack up a bunch of smileys.

 

There was an event stack of sorts at GWIX where a couple had an event to celebrate their wedding anniversary immediately following the close of GWIX. I saw two to three hundred people on a line and wondered what was going on. It turned out it was the "event" and people were waiting on line to sign the logbook. At one point people started just passing a logbook down the line for others to sign. All a lot of the attendees did was sign the book and leave. Many never even caught sight of the couple hosting the event. They just wanted to get their signature in the logbook so they could get their smiley. I think that misses the entire point of events and I'd hate to see that become commonplace.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

What is the harm in event stacking anyway?

 

Harm as in physical, none. The harm comes when it is abused to the point where it becomes absurd and misses the point of events. I like the rule because I think events are one of the best things about geocaching and I don't want to see them morph into simply another way to rack up a bunch of smileys.

 

There was an event stack of sorts at GWIX where a couple had an event to celebrate their wedding anniversary immediately following the close of GWIX. I saw two to three hundred people on a line and wondered what was going on. It turned out it was the "event" and people were waiting on line to sign the logbook. At one point people started just passing a logbook down the line for others to sign. All a lot of the attendees did was sign the book and leave. Many never even caught sight of the couple hosting the event. They just wanted to get their signature in the logbook so they could get their smiley. I think that misses the entire point of events and I'd hate to see that become commonplace.

 

But in a world where the original "point" of physical caches has been replaced with the "point" of 1500+ power trails, what's the "point" of restricting two events in the same day?

 

I'd hate to see what you describe becoming commonplace too, but why pick Events as the line in the sand?

Share this post


Link to post

The MnGCA was hosting a Pizza event GC2MAFM. Pizza was allowed in the name, but the review would not a allow a picture of pizza on the cache page. The person ended up with a empty pizza tray to get it pubhished.

 

Absurd if it is really true.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

You know, I can see where back-to-back events could, in some instances, cause problems and hard feelings. Just as an extreme illustration, let's say one well-known cacher and a newbie cacher create back-to-back events in the same general area, same day. Experienced cacher gets many attendees, newbie cacher sits there alone for the entire time. Many cachers only have time/energy for one event per day. They chose the event hosted by somebody they knew.

 

Purely hypothetical, but I think you can see. Another example could be made of two cachers with some hostility toward each other trying to compete with each other by hosting back-to-back events.

 

The reviewers should take care of the guidelines and not of the soul life of cachers. They are not psychiaters.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

What is the harm in event stacking anyway?

 

Harm as in physical, none. The harm comes when it is abused to the point where it becomes absurd and misses the point of events. I like the rule because I think events are one of the best things about geocaching and I don't want to see them morph into simply another way to rack up a bunch of smileys.

 

There was an event stack of sorts at GWIX where a couple had an event to celebrate their wedding anniversary immediately following the close of GWIX. I saw two to three hundred people on a line and wondered what was going on. It turned out it was the "event" and people were waiting on line to sign the logbook. At one point people started just passing a logbook down the line for others to sign. All a lot of the attendees did was sign the book and leave. Many never even caught sight of the couple hosting the event. They just wanted to get their signature in the logbook so they could get their smiley. I think that misses the entire point of events and I'd hate to see that become commonplace.

 

That occurs at regular events also. Person shows up, says hi, and leaves. It there were 3 events in succession, it would most likely only happen at the last one. I would think that the more events in succession would draw a larger crowd anyway.

 

The only issue I can see, is if there were 2 events going on at the same time in close proximity - say 50 miles. Then the cachers would have to pick between the two, or sign the logbook on one, and dash over to the other. If they were stacked after each other then it would seem ok to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Methinks the Reviewers should stick to enforcing the existing guidelines and quit inventing their own.

 

I like to believe it's probably more complicated than that.

You are probably right. I was kinda hoping a Reviewer might chime in and offer their thoughts, as regards the current text of the guidelines, on two completely unrelated events, on the same day, in the same geographic area. Because I am not a Reviewer, I have no clue what goes on behind the scenes. All I can see is the guidelines we are asked to follow, and the OP's example, which, on its face, appears to follow those guidelines. I'm seeing four possible reasons for this, in order of likelihood:

 

  1. The OP is either fibbing, exaggerating or misunderstanding the incident.
  2. There are new guidelines which have not been published yet, which the Reviewers have been asked to enforce.
  3. I'm a complete dunderhead, and utterly failed at comprehending the guidelines I read
  4. A Reviewer is pushing his own private agenda, inventing guidelines to force the game to match his biased aesthetics.

 

At this point, only a Reviewer can provide an answer.

 

The original situation that came up was this: Two cachers listed two events on the same day. One was for a wing night and one was for a bonfire. The bonfire was being held later in the evening at a different location and the wing night was being held at a local pub. At some point after the two events were published, the pub went out of business so instead of simply having the reviewer change the coordinates to a new venue (which would likely have avoided the situation and been the better thing to do), the cache owner archived his listing, and listed a new one. A different reviewer came in and denied the new listing claiming that him and the other cacher were "event stacking". It took a good week of back and forth between the event owner, the reviewer, and the other cacher who had the bonfire event listed, before the reviewer finally allowed the pub event to be listed again. In this case, the cachers fought and won their case but it definitely made us locals wonder what was going on since we'd never even heard of that term before.

 

Since then, the same reviewer has also denied other events claiming the same thing. This is how I ended up starting this thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Here in Romania, it became a tradition to have stacked events - not two events in the same city several hours apart, but 5-6 events during a 72 hour interval at the same coordinates. The events stand on their own merit, are hosted by different geocachers and are independent from each other, but are intended to attract the same group of geocachers. So far they were all published.

 

The last such event was the "10 Years of Geocaching in Romania" celebration, that started Friday morning and ended Sunday afternoon. The "stack" started Thursday evening/night with a Beer Event. Friday morning the new caches of the main event were published, and people rushed after FTFs or enjoyed a day of caching. In the evening we celebrated the anniversary with champagne, followed by another event "Geocaching Awards", followed by more socializing and night caching as part of the main event. Saturday continued with geocaching in small or large groups, and in the evening we had "The Contest" - with prizes, followed by "1000 Stories" - socialization until the morning, the central theme of which was another milestone, the 1000th geocache published in our country. Sunday went on with more geocaching, then everyone went home (up to 8 hours of driving). We planned to also have a CITO on Sunday, but nobody published one on time.

The events are meant for geocachers to socialize. Although being independent, without the main event, the satellite events would have gathered only 10-15% of the attendance. The main event without the satellites would have gathered ~80% of the attendance, but socialization would have been minimal. By having stacked events, the ~50 geocachers had time to meet and talk to each other, newbies and old timers sat at the same table and earned from each other, and everybody had fun.

 

Recently I attended a week-end long mega event. It started Friday evening with a meet-and-greet. I was late, and since it wasn't a separate event I chose not to attend. Saturday the new caches were published and everyone rushed to find them. I met other geocachers on the trail, exchanged some words, and went on different ways. During the day there were workshops and other activities as part of the mega event, but most people were out geocaching (including myself). In the evening there was another meet-and-greet and a raffle, to which I attended. Geocachers were gathered in small groups; I recognized some people I met on the trail, but they already had their groups and I didn't want to appear rude by joining uninvited. Feeling uneasy, I soon left. Sunday morning there was the CITO event, to which I didn't attend.

 

Personally, I prefer some sort of "stacking" in the case of weekend-long events. Without satellite events, socialization is low, and without socialization the event makes little sense.

In case of events that last only a couple of hours, I see no problem in having two (or more) events several hours apart. The fact that "the events will attract the same group of geocachers" is an advantage, not a reason to deny one of them. When the second event starts after the first ends, there's no interference between them, and having both events published is a plus for the geocaching community.

On the other hand, having two events at exactly the same time close to each other will divide the community. Some geocachers will attend one event, some will attend the other one, and some will come to sign the log at the first event then rush to sign the log at the second one. When there are chances that an event will "steal" the attendance from another event, I see the reason to deny one of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Another case in the same area as Zor, we've had our members get events rejected for evening events, because somebody was having a Breakfast the same day, near the location.

 

You are receiving this email because you are the owner of this listing.

 

Location: XXXX

XXXX temporarily disabled XXXX (Not Published) (Event Cache) at 7/12/2011

 

Log Date: 7/12/2011

Greetings fellow geocacher. I'm one of the volunteer reviewers for geocaching.com and my role is to help you with the listing guidelines as they apply to your submission.

 

During the review of your new listing it was noted that there is another event on the same day very close by. Please select another date to avoid the appearance of "Event Stacking", and also take the name of the venue out of the title as that is too promotional.

 

**NOTE** The best method to move this listing towards publication is to resolve the above content or provide further details in a Reviewer Note. You will then need to ENABLE (cache page under Navigation, or using the Enable Listing log type) this listing to continue the review process. Please DO NOT email me. See http://support.Groundspeak.com​/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=301

Edited by Dragoon

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...