Have the guidelines changed for listing of events?

July 14, 2011

One of our members suggested doing up caches like this to get around issues

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC22EYF

19k · July 14, 2011

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

I can vouch for NOSNOW. If he said it, its true.

19k · July 14, 2011

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

I was not implying that they should go on a case-by-case basis because of the possibility of causing hard feelings. I am speculating that as a possible reason for a change in how the guidelines are interpreted universally.

Besides... some of them may be psychiaters. You never know, do you? :lol:

9.3k · July 14, 2011

Besides... some of them may be psychiaters.

Fade in to visual of me, laying on a couch, in an office. Low lighting and soft background music, creating a relaxing atmoshphere. PuppyMonster sitting in a chair with a notebook in front of him. PuppyMonster asks, "So Riffster, tell me how you feel about film cans..." :blink: :lol:

8.3k · July 14, 2011

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

I would fix the title as mentioned and then re-submit. If it is still rejected I would then file an appeals with the frog asking for clarification of the event guidelines.

1.8k · July 14, 2011

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

Interestingly enough, I don't see a problem with this.

15.3k · July 14, 2011

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

Have you contacted Groundspeak about this pattern? If so, what was their response? Is this a new policy the reviewers are supposed to enforce, or is this a pet policy of an individual reviewer?

4.2k · July 14, 2011

Besides... some of them may be psychiaters.

Fade in to visual of me, laying on a couch, in an office. Low lighting and soft background music, creating a relaxing atmoshphere. PuppyMonster sitting in a chair with a notebook in front of him. PuppyMonster asks, "So Riffster, tell me how you feel about film cans..."

It's funnier if you imagine PuppyMonster speaking with an Austrian accent. Like x2 funnier (or 60% more for some of you ).

6.7k · July 14, 2011

What is the harm in event stacking anyway?

Exactly. Let folks host events if they want to. If geocachers want to attend one, several, all or none they can decide that on their own. Choices are good to have.

Edited July 14, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

3k · July 15, 2011

I've seen CITOs and meet-n-greet BBQ events on the same day in the same county several times; I was under the impression as long as they are in different places with different hosts and no time overlap it was okay.

38.2k · July 15, 2011

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

Interestingly enough, I don't see a problem with this.

Nor do I. This spring there were two events in my area at about the same time, an ice cream social and a hiking event. People had to make a choice, but in the end both event were successful because they drew two different sets of cachers.

I don't see two concurrent events as an issue. Stacking is, because it turns events into a nothing more than a smiley cranking opportunity. That has already happened to an extent in some areas where they allow multiple attended logs on events, but I don't see turning events into the equivalent of power trails as a beneficial thing. It totally loses the point of events.

We can to some extent avoid caches that we don't care for but if it gets to the point where people start avoiding certain events it will destroy the event meme.

Edited July 15, 2011 by briansnat

6.8k · July 15, 2011

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

I can vouch for NOSNOW. If he said it, its true.

I rather meant that perhaps a specfic picture (like one which shows the pizza of the restaurant where the event took place) has been rejected. Suppose that I include a picture of my own home made pizza in an event listing. Why in the world should this not be allowed?

Cezanne

4.2k · July 15, 2011

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

Interestingly enough, I don't see a problem with this.

Nor do I. This spring there were two events in my area at about the same time, an ice cream social and a hiking event. People had to make a choice, but in the end both event were successful because they drew two different sets of cachers.

I don't see two concurrent events as an issue. Stacking is, because it turns events into a nothing more than a smiley cranking opportunity. That has already happened to an extent in some areas where they allow multiple attended logs on events, but I don't see turning events into the equivalent of power trails as a beneficial thing. It totally loses the point of events.

We can to some extent avoid caches that we don't care for but if it gets to the point where people start avoiding certain events it will destroy the event meme.

That just doesn't make sense and just further confuses the issue for me. Here's what I'm getting out of this:

Two events on the same day = "nothing more than a smiley cranking opportunity" = "loses point of events" = BAD = Reviewers disallow.

Multiple logs on events = BAD = Reviewers involved??

Power Trails = avoidable = acceptable.

Avoiding Events = DEATH OF A MEME.

So turning caching into a film can relay is ultimately honkey-dory but, good lord in the heavens, THINK OF THE MEMES.

:huh:

19k · July 15, 2011

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

I can vouch for NOSNOW. If he said it, its true.

I rather meant that perhaps a specfic picture (like one which shows the pizza of the restaurant where the event took place) has been rejected. Suppose that I include a picture of my own home made pizza in an event listing. Why in the world should this not be allowed?

Cezanne

If your event was not at a place that sold pizzas, I doubt that would be a problem. It also may not have been a problem for other reviewers. We have a rather new reviewer here who is probably still trying to figure some of these things out.

[edit]

OK, I found some information about the empty pizza pan episode. The reviewer posted the following to the local geocaching group's forum:

Reviewer: Don't shoot the messenger.

After a discussion amongst reviewers and Groundspeak folks, I feel the need to clarify what Groundspeak's guidelines are regarding commercial caches (especially how they apply to events).

Don't shoot the messenger.

My questions were:

What about the a picture of the business or it's sign out front?

A picture of, say, the menu?

The food that they offer?

What about a generic picture that COULD be the food they offer?

Basically the conversation ended at the idea that anything beyond name and address of the restaurant, and perhaps a couple of words about the type of food served, is not permitted.

I don't really recall caches/events after I publish them, so I can't bring to mind anything at the moment that didn't follow this (nor does it matter), but from this point forward I'll be sticking closer to these requirements as I understand them better. Fair warning.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Event Creator: So my picture of an empty pizza pan with the phrase "Don't miss it!" on the event page for the next pizza night is out of the question?

Reviewer: I'd say it's marginal but I think I'd publish a picture with an empty pan and some crumbs on it. A picture of the full pan of pizza is different.

There was a bit more back & forth discussion, but essentially that is it. The reviewer wasn't sure, so he checked with other reviewers, and the consensus was that the pizza picture was out of line.

Edited July 15, 2011 by knowschad

July 16, 2011

Reviewer: I'd say it's marginal but I think I'd publish a picture with an empty pan and some crumbs on it. A picture of the full pan of pizza is different.

Wow... its simply unbelievable...

6.1k · July 17, 2011

So there is two separate events one after each other. A cacher attends the first one, and then just shows up to sign the log on the second one and leaves, and it is seen as boosting event smilies and the practice gets banned. The following month, there are two events at the same time 50 miles apart. The same cacher signs the log on the first one, then immediately leaves and drives to the second one to sign the log at the end of the second one. What is the difference? Other than the fact that the second practice is allowed, and he gets both smilies much quicker than waiting all day for the second event ?

July 17, 2011

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.

except it is not a rule because it is not in the knowledge books or the guidelines. If the event is unique and it stands on its own then it should be allowed UNLESS they want to put the event stacking rule in the guidelines and make it official but to subject some one to a secret rule is not fair.

38.2k · July 17, 2011

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.

except it is not a rule because it is not in the knowledge books or the guidelines. If the event is unique and it stands on its own then it should be allowed UNLESS they want to put the event stacking rule in the guidelines and make it official but to subject some one to a secret rule is not fair.

It may not be in the guidelines, but try stacking some events and see if they are published. If the event is unique and stands on its own it's not likely to be considered stacking.

8k · July 17, 2011

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.

except it is not a rule because it is not in the knowledge books or the guidelines. If the event is unique and it stands on its own then it should be allowed UNLESS they want to put the event stacking rule in the guidelines and make it official but to subject some one to a secret rule is not fair.

It may not be in the guidelines, but try stacking some events and see if they are published. If the event is unique and stands on its own it's not likely to be considered stacking.

I sort of recall the guidelines being different at one time. The practice of stacking had become abusive so reviewers were told that each event had to stand alone. There seems to be have been some push back as the guidelines now read

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.

So it seems that multiple events on the same day and even in the same place could be list so long as each on would stand on its on merits as event. Certainly the example in the OP of a wing night and then a bonfire later sound like each element would stand as an event by itself.

If reviewers are going back to a stricter interpretation of when events stand alone it should be clarified.

Not only this example but the strange idea that picture of a generic pizza is commercial but an empty pizza pan is not makes no sense.

It seems that some reviewers are looking for excuses to not publish events. My suspicion is that there are more events than ever and some reviewers have decided there are too many events. They seem to be wishing on themselves a "wow" requirement for events, so they can publish only those events that are "wow" enough. In the absence of such a guideline, they are subjectively deciding that using the word pizza in an event is commercial and having two events close to each other on the same day is stacking.

I believe that Groundspeak needs to clarify the event guidelines yet again. If there is a concern that some areas are having too many events or that events are being stacked just so people can log smilies they ought to say so and then address these issues explicitly. I'm getting tired of what I've called "hidden guidelines". There may be published guidelines that give the reviewer cover. But without the community knowing the rationale and the real issues that reviewers are using these guidelines to address, they are no better than a secret guideline that is not published.

38.2k · July 17, 2011

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.

except it is not a rule because it is not in the knowledge books or the guidelines. If the event is unique and it stands on its own then it should be allowed UNLESS they want to put the event stacking rule in the guidelines and make it official but to subject some one to a secret rule is not fair.

It may not be in the guidelines, but try stacking some events and see if they are published. If the event is unique and stands on its own it's not likely to be considered stacking.

I sort of recall the guidelines being different at one time. The practice of stacking had become abusive so reviewers were told that each event had to stand alone. There seems to be have been some push back as the guidelines now read

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.

So it seems that multiple events on the same day and even in the same place could be list so long as each on would stand on its on merits as event. Certainly the example in the OP of a wing night and then a bonfire later sound like each element would stand as an event by itself.

If reviewers are going back to a stricter interpretation of when events stand alone it should be clarified.

The guidelines WERE different at one time. Two events in the same area on the same day were not likely to be published at all. Groundspeak decided events were a good thing so the guideline was loosened up so events on the same day in the same area could be published as long as each event could stand on its own merits. That is the current guideline and precisely what I said in my post above (see bold). Multiple events that stand on their own merits is not the same thing as event stacking.

It seems that some reviewers are looking for excuses to not publish events. My suspicion is that there are more events than ever and some reviewers have decided there are too many events. They seem to be wishing on themselves a "wow" requirement for events, so they can publish only those events that are "wow" enough. In the absence of such a guideline, they are subjectively deciding that using the word pizza in an event is commercial and having two events close to each other on the same day is stacking.

Where DO you get this stuff? Reviewers are geocachers, they like events. You'll often see one or more reviewers at an event (though if he is in the closet you may not know it). There is no secret "wow" requirement. If the event conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

8.3k · July 17, 2011

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.

except it is not a rule because it is not in the knowledge books or the guidelines. If the event is unique and it stands on its own then it should be allowed UNLESS they want to put the event stacking rule in the guidelines and make it official but to subject some one to a secret rule is not fair.

It may not be in the guidelines, but try stacking some events and see if they are published. If the event is unique and stands on its own it's not likely to be considered stacking.

I sort of recall the guidelines being different at one time. The practice of stacking had become abusive so reviewers were told that each event had to stand alone. There seems to be have been some push back as the guidelines now read

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.

So it seems that multiple events on the same day and even in the same place could be list so long as each on would stand on its on merits as event. Certainly the example in the OP of a wing night and then a bonfire later sound like each element would stand as an event by itself.

If reviewers are going back to a stricter interpretation of when events stand alone it should be clarified.

The guidelines WERE different at one time. Two events in the same area on the same day were not likely to be published at all. Groundspeak decided events were a good thing so the guideline was loosened up so events on the same day in the same area could be published as long as each event could stand on its own merits. That is the current guideline and precisely what I said in my post above (see bold). Multiple events that stand on their own merits is not the same thing as event stacking.

It seems that some reviewers are looking for excuses to not publish events. My suspicion is that there are more events than ever and some reviewers have decided there are too many events. They seem to be wishing on themselves a "wow" requirement for events, so they can publish only those events that are "wow" enough. In the absence of such a guideline, they are subjectively deciding that using the word pizza in an event is commercial and having two events close to each other on the same day is stacking.

Where DO you get this stuff? Reviewers are geocachers, they like events. You'll often see one or more reviewers at an event (though if he is in the closet you may not know it). There is no secret "wow" requirement. If the event conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

It seems, from the OP, that a certain reviewer does not agree with you.

9.3k · July 17, 2011

If the event conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

This should probably be changed to;

"If the event conforms to both the publicly posted guidelines, and the secret squirrel guidelines, it will be published"

July 17, 2011

Wouldn't a pancake breakfast automatically be a "stacked" event?

15.3k · July 17, 2011

Just based on the discussion in this thread, I'd say that the real guidelines/policies for publishing events needs to be clarified. Thanks for posting the suggestion on the feedback site, tozainamboku.

8.3k · July 17, 2011

If the event conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

This should probably be changed to;

"If the event conforms to both the publicly posted guidelines, and the secret squirrel guidelines, it will be published"

And you probably can add the personal opinion guidelines of the individual reviewers.

15.3k · July 28, 2011

For the record, the suggestion on the feedback site is now under review. According to Bryan, "We are going to consider both sides of the event stacking debate and determine whether the guidelines do in fact need to be revised."

[edit: fix broken BBCode]

Edited July 28, 2011 by niraD

1.7k · July 28, 2011

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.

WWFM says, "hi".

4.2k · July 28, 2011

If the event conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

This should probably be changed to;

"If the event conforms to both the publicly posted guidelines, and the secret squirrel guidelines, it will be published"

Secret+Squirrel.jpg

August 5, 2011

Talk about stacking, all on 8/20 of this year:

GC2V3A0 - Breakfast, location seems questionable, description puts it within a very short range of the other three events (in Independence, MO)

GC31CDV - Breakfast, same CO as 1st breakfast (Independence, MO)

GC2ZQ29 - Flash mob? (Blue Springs, MO)

GC2RKN8 - Picnic, first listed by GC code (Blue Springs, MO)

Blue Springs and Independence are within 5 miles of each other, all of these events easily fall within a 5 mile circle.

It seems interesting that some of the examples listed were turned down, then there is this.

Talk about inequality in applying the rules (oh, wait, is it a rule?)

Have the guidelines changed for listing of events?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation