Jump to content

Successful "Event Stacking"


Melfiini

Recommended Posts

Note: I was encouraged to make this post by a local reviewer who thought it would be good to share my recent experience on "event stacking" with fellow geocachers. I have not read the previous discussions on "event stacking" on the forum nor do I know what the official guideline is. This is nothing else but what happened and how I think it turned out.

 

So someone got this idea of 12 events on 12 December 2012. I thought it was brilliant.

 

The reviewing process was long and frustrating to both us organizers and our local reviewers. It ended up taking two and a half weeks. (You shouldn't get me wrong here: I do know that we all did our best. Sometimes it's just not that simple. Most of the reviewing is, however, not relevant to the story.)

 

I was very proud of what we had come up with.

One day we got a reviewer note stating that our events could be considered "event stacking". We were explained that the (reviewers'? I couldn't find this part here) guidelines say they should not publish multiple events organized in a small area in a short period of time. It said they had to ask Groundspeak if it was okay.

 

I still don't know what the official answer was (or if there was any), but we did get our events published.

 

To the actual point: We had a great day.

 

I was surprised how many came along. All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long. You should note that it was Wednesday and a perfectly normal workday: quite many people actually took a day off for this!

I met wonderful people and visited new places and spent time caching and talking and laughing. Throughout the day people came to see me just to tell how much they had enjoyed the events so far and that, of course, made my day. I had fun and it was great to hear other people did, too.

 

I know some were suspicious how our "event stacking" would turn out. I think it was a success. According to logs and the conversations I have had other attendees think so, too.

I have already been making plans for a similar day next summer. Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

 

Our "121212" Events

GC40FER

GC3N722

GC40FGN

GC3YYJD

GC40GR8

GC40FG4

GC40FG7

GC40FG8

GC40FJP

GC40ER8

GC3YYJ8

GC40HEM

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

 

Kind of like this event, where (so far) the only Will Attend is by somebody who will (might, if nothing better comes up) attend because one word in the event title helps them out with a challenge cache: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=149464c1-9b3a-48ae-837b-6102d9f5a3b2

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

 

I don't think it was a smiley collecting opportunity. There were 12 in our area spaced about 1 hour apart located around the outerbelt. Some cachers spent the day going to all twelve. We were planning to hit a couple close to our exit, but work interfered. I think GS gave a pass to the 12 theme. Nothing more than that.

Link to comment
It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

This was my point (that I somehow forgot to properly state in my first post, apologies): many think it was organized for a bunch of smileys. It was not.

 

Well, I am not going to deny that easy finds do attract (some) people, but it was not the main reason we decided to organize twelve events in the first place. We found the idea of 12 on 12/12/12 quite hilarious and thought it would be fun to offer people an opportunity to spend an entire day caching together. A single event would not work for that: a 14-hour (moving) event, anyone? (Most likely this wouldn't even be allowed: could be considered organized cache searching. Why would we walk/drive by a cache and not stop to try and find it?)

 

We planned the events to be relatively close to each other and have enough time between them so everyone could attend everything - not because we wanted to offer ridiculously easy finds but because we hoped people would actually enjoy their day without pointless hurry. Afterwards I heard that people really liked that they had enough time to find few caches on their way from event A to event B. They also really loved how we met, parted, did whatever we wanted and a little later gathered again. For twelve times!

 

What comes to the "event stacking" part, I am sorry to know that others have had their attempt(s) shot down. I do understand the point of forbidding actual "event stacking"* but I wouldn't call a properly planned "event day" "stacking".

Our twelve events were kind of an experiment. It turned out to be great and so I wish this kind of event "stacking" will (someday) be officially allowed. It doesn't have to be "just another smiley collecting opportunity" but an opportunity to meet new people, visit new places, search for new caches and just have a fun day!

 

*Ten 5-minute events within ten meters in a row, for example. Of course this is just my opinion. "Multiple events organized in a small area in a short period of time" can be interpreted just the way you want.

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

 

Just a few months ago my friend, his wife, and his daughter all hit pretty huge milestones at the same time. They wanted to have 3 events, each hosting their own, to celebrate these milestones. They wanted to do each event at a different time, at a different place, an hour or 2 and a few miles apart. The reviewer refused 2 of them due to having too many events too close together within too narrow of a time window by the same people. So I guess they could do this now? :blink:

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

 

Just a few months ago my friend, his wife, and his daughter all hit pretty huge milestones at the same time. They wanted to have 3 events, each hosting their own, to celebrate these milestones. They wanted to do each event at a different time, at a different place, an hour or 2 and a few miles apart. The reviewer refused 2 of them due to having too many events too close together within too narrow of a time window by the same people. So I guess they could do this now? :blink:

I think the question I'd have about that is, "why?" Why 3 events when one event for all three would not only do, but possibly attract more people to one spot than if the events were separated. I'm guessing that the answer to that question is what the reviewer would also be looking for.

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

On top of the 12 events we had a flashmob kind of event and walked around the statue of a famous author pondering about the deeper meaning of IT all (http://coord.info/GC33A4D)

"

Does it make any sense any longer?

Schedule: 12 December, 2012, from 9 p.m. sharp to 9.12 p.m.

1st task: To walk'n'meet around the object discussing the question above with the fellow participants. Please greet the fellow participants as well as their opinions with a sympathetic nod.

2nd task: At 9.10 p.m. to sit down for a couple of minutes imitating the object and ponder, what does the word 'it' stand for in the question.

"

 

And also this 13th event for the day was very popular and a great success :laughing:

Link to comment

On top of the 12 events we had a flashmob kind of event and walked around the statue of a famous author pondering about the deeper meaning of IT all (http://coord.info/GC33A4D)

"

Does it make any sense any longer?

Schedule: 12 December, 2012, from 9 p.m. sharp to 9.12 p.m.

1st task: To walk'n'meet around the object discussing the question above with the fellow participants. Please greet the fellow participants as well as their opinions with a sympathetic nod.

2nd task: At 9.10 p.m. to sit down for a couple of minutes imitating the object and ponder, what does the word 'it' stand for in the question.

"

 

And also this 13th event for the day was very popular and a great success :laughing:

This is just a disturbing scene.80001c3d-e8f4-4a48-95d3-cdc47346be5a.jpg

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

I thought the "whole point of events" was to get together with other cachers.

 

I guess that's why I'm not the "US Geocacher of the Year 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010". :rolleyes:

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

I thought the "whole point of events" was to get together with other cachers.

Yes, as opposed to gathering numbers. I think that's the point Brianstat was trying to make.

 

In addition, the time spent driving between events could have been spent at one event, visiting with those other cachers.

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

Apparently there is nothing wrong with smiley collecting opportunities. Even people who don't like power trails agree that the opportunity to get a lot of finds in a short time makes them popular. So why not provide the same opportunity with events?

 

If you're not "into numbers" you don't have to do a power trail or attend all twelve events. I find this attitude that numbers per se are evil a bit arrogant. You can make arguments why "for-the-nubmers" is bad for geocaching or why it makes your geocaching less enjoyable. But I don't understand the need to belittle people who would find something like this enjoyable.

 

I suspect part of the issue is that it's hard to tell when event stacking is going to be allowed and when multiple events will be denied. While there has been a move to allow more multiple events recently, some reviewers still use the stacking rule when if feel there isn't a clear reason for making separate events. My guess is that the twelve 12/12/12 events were approved as a one time exception. After all this is the last triple date most of us will be alive to see. While I expect to see more stacking of events, I doubt we will be seeing more twelve event stacks.

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

 

Just a few months ago my friend, his wife, and his daughter all hit pretty huge milestones at the same time. They wanted to have 3 events, each hosting their own, to celebrate these milestones. They wanted to do each event at a different time, at a different place, an hour or 2 and a few miles apart. The reviewer refused 2 of them due to having too many events too close together within too narrow of a time window by the same people. So I guess they could do this now? :blink:

I think the question I'd have about that is, "why?" Why 3 events when one event for all three would not only do, but possibly attract more people to one spot than if the events were separated. I'm guessing that the answer to that question is what the reviewer would also be looking for.

 

I have no idea why they wanted to do it that way. I certainly wouldn't. But that's not the point. This thread is about Groundspeak allowing event stacking, not why someone would want to do it.

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

 

I don't think it was a smiley collecting opportunity. There were 12 in our area spaced about 1 hour apart located around the outerbelt. Some cachers spent the day going to all twelve. We were planning to hit a couple close to our exit, but work interfered. I think GS gave a pass to the 12 theme. Nothing more than that.

 

Out of curiosity, why was 12 chosen. If reviewers are going to allow stacking events, why not 24 events, or one every minute. Since finding a cache a minute seems to be quite doable on power trails, why not create an event at each cache along the trail so that your team can double their find count while doing the trail. If GS gave a pass to the 12 event case on 12/12/12 the page listing should probably have explicitly indicated that it was done with the permission of GS, and that event stacking as a general rule is not allowed.

Link to comment
... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

 

Just a few months ago my friend, his wife, and his daughter all hit pretty huge milestones at the same time. They wanted to have 3 events, each hosting their own, to celebrate these milestones. They wanted to do each event at a different time, at a different place, an hour or 2 and a few miles apart. The reviewer refused 2 of them due to having too many events too close together within too narrow of a time window by the same people. So I guess they could do this now? :blink:

I think the question I'd have about that is, "why?" Why 3 events when one event for all three would not only do, but possibly attract more people to one spot than if the events were separated. I'm guessing that the answer to that question is what the reviewer would also be looking for.

 

I have no idea why they wanted to do it that way. I certainly wouldn't. But that's not the point. This thread is about Groundspeak allowing event stacking, not why someone would want to do it.

I think you missed my point. I was trying to say that Groundspeak (or more accurately, the reviewers) may make their decisions based on the motive. At least, that was my main point.

Link to comment
... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

Honestly, I'm hoping that this doesn't set a precedent.

 

But, as for traditional (small "t") geocaches, something like a power trail might be placed "because you can". At least with this event series, there was a fun theme to it, and would likely not be approved as such again as there will not be another double-digit MM/DD/YY occasion for us to see for a long time. I think I'd have an easier time with seeing events published like this than another "because I can every 528 feet" power trail.

 

Then again, the original intent of event caches likely wasn't a series of flash mob-style get togethers. Perhaps someone will now take up the torch of "original intent of geocaching", and we'll go horribly off topic. :ph34r:

Link to comment
... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

 

Why are you appalled? Groundspeak allows events in Ohio where people log 80 temporary event caches that are all virtual within one mile of driving. That is, drive one mile, look at stuff while driving, log 80 caches. And the reviewers keep allowing it.

Link to comment

Well I kind of like that idea for 12 12-12-12 day events. I like the idea of maybe having a different organized activity at some of the events. I wonder if people would be interested if they were located in out of the way places (middle of the woods)so there'd be a challenge to finding and logging them all.

Link to comment

Honestly, I'm hoping that this doesn't set a precedent.

 

But, as for traditional (small "t") geocaches, something like a power trail might be placed "because you can". At least with this event series, there was a fun theme to it, and would likely not be approved as such again as there will not be another double-digit MM/DD/YY occasion for us to see for a long time. I think I'd have an easier time with seeing events published like this than another "because I can every 528 feet" power trail.

 

Then again, the original intent of event caches likely wasn't a series of flash mob-style get togethers. Perhaps someone will now take up the torch of "original intent of geocaching", and we'll go horribly off topic. :ph34r:

 

What about those 24 "stacked" events for a 24 hour period (one every hour) that was featured on PodCachers this summer? I would say that was the precedent.

Link to comment

Well I kind of like that idea for 12 12-12-12 day events. I like the idea of maybe having a different organized activity at some of the events. I wonder if people would be interested if they were located in out of the way places (middle of the woods)so there'd be a challenge to finding and logging them all.

It was a neat concept for the day it was held. But, most events I've been to can have different people "hosting" different parts of the agenda. The idea that each cacher needs to have their own event for a related event activity is not really what events are there for.

 

Perhaps we will see an event cache set where many cachers take ownership of specific parts...

Event for the dropping off of the deposit check with Parks and Rec

Event for the logbook signing

Event for the buffet table straightening

Event for the door prizes

Event for the kid corral

Event for GPS accuracy game

Event for the event cache announcements

Event for the yard games

Event for the swatting of yellow jackets from the punch bowl

Event for announcing lost car keys

Event for announcing lost child

Event for talking to others

... :laughing::anicute:

Link to comment
... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

Honestly, I'm hoping that this doesn't set a precedent.

 

But, as for traditional (small "t") geocaches, something like a power trail might be placed "because you can". At least with this event series, there was a fun theme to it,

 

So you're saying it was approved because it had a "wow" factor? :unsure:

Link to comment
... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

Honestly, I'm hoping that this doesn't set a precedent.

 

But, as for traditional (small "t") geocaches, something like a power trail might be placed "because you can". At least with this event series, there was a fun theme to it,

 

So you're saying it was approved because it had a "wow" factor? :unsure:

No.

Link to comment

It bothers me that it is a "rule" but is not written anywhere. That is not fair.

Caches should only be approved or denied based it what is written. Not some super secret rules that we can't find out about.

 

... All our events had 63 to 106 attendees, most of them hanging around all day long....

So let me get this straight. 63 people drove around town from place to place and said "Hello" to each other 12 times and got 12 smileys for that? That, to me, is not what events are about. This is just silliness. I'm appalled that Groundspeak allowed it.

you're appalled? you make it sound like he is guilty of war crimes. It does not hurt you at all. take a chill pill and relax. its just a game, a non-competitive game at that.

Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

Apparently there is nothing wrong with smiley collecting opportunities. Even people who don't like power trails agree that the opportunity to get a lot of finds in a short time makes them popular. So why not provide the same opportunity with events?

 

If you're not "into numbers" you don't have to do a power trail or attend all twelve events. I find this attitude that numbers per se are evil a bit arrogant. You can make arguments why "for-the-nubmers" is bad for geocaching or why it makes your geocaching less enjoyable. But I don't understand the need to belittle people who would find something like this enjoyable.

 

I suspect part of the issue is that it's hard to tell when event stacking is going to be allowed and when multiple events will be denied. While there has been a move to allow more multiple events recently, some reviewers still use the stacking rule when if feel there isn't a clear reason for making separate events. My guess is that the twelve 12/12/12 events were approved as a one time exception. After all this is the last triple date most of us will be alive to see. While I expect to see more stacking of events, I doubt we will be seeing more twelve event stacks.

 

Are you honestly telling me that this isn't about stats?

Link to comment

Now I just wish nobody decides to tell me this is not actually allowed. :lol:

Well, apparently it IS actually allowed... now. I just feel for those that were denied events in the past because "stacking" was considered improper. As far as I know, there is no written guideline regarding the practice... just reviewer discretion. But this reminds me of all of those early power trail attempts that were shot down before the ruling was repealed on those. Sounds like the ruling on event stacking has been repealed as well.

 

Bottom line though: glad it went well and you all had fun. That's what we do this for, isn't it?

 

Just a few months ago my friend, his wife, and his daughter all hit pretty huge milestones at the same time. They wanted to have 3 events, each hosting their own, to celebrate these milestones. They wanted to do each event at a different time, at a different place, an hour or 2 and a few miles apart. The reviewer refused 2 of them due to having too many events too close together within too narrow of a time window by the same people. So I guess they could do this now? :blink:

I think the question I'd have about that is, "why?" Why 3 events when one event for all three would not only do, but possibly attract more people to one spot than if the events were separated. I'm guessing that the answer to that question is what the reviewer would also be looking for.

 

I have no idea why they wanted to do it that way. I certainly wouldn't. But that's not the point. This thread is about Groundspeak allowing event stacking, not why someone would want to do it.

I think you missed my point. I was trying to say that Groundspeak (or more accurately, the reviewers) may make their decisions based on the motive. At least, that was my main point.

 

OK. I'll give you that. But that brings the point of who are "they" to decide who's events merit stacking? They should either be allowed or not. They don't want to judge "wow factor" for virtuals, they should not be in the business of validating reasons for event plans either.

Link to comment
It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

This was my point (that I somehow forgot to properly state in my first post, apologies): many think it was organized for a bunch of smileys. It was not.

 

Well, I am not going to deny that easy finds do attract (some) people, but it was not the main reason we decided to organize twelve events in the first place. We found the idea of 12 on 12/12/12 quite hilarious and thought it would be fun to offer people an opportunity to spend an entire day caching together. A single event would not work for that: a 14-hour (moving) event, anyone? (Most likely this wouldn't even be allowed: could be considered organized cache searching. Why would we walk/drive by a cache and not stop to try and find it?)

 

We planned the events to be relatively close to each other and have enough time between them so everyone could attend everything - not because we wanted to offer ridiculously easy finds but because we hoped people would actually enjoy their day without pointless hurry. Afterwards I heard that people really liked that they had enough time to find few caches on their way from event A to event B. They also really loved how we met, parted, did whatever we wanted and a little later gathered again. For twelve times!

 

What comes to the "event stacking" part, I am sorry to know that others have had their attempt(s) shot down. I do understand the point of forbidding actual "event stacking"* but I wouldn't call a properly planned "event day" "stacking".

Our twelve events were kind of an experiment. It turned out to be great and so I wish this kind of event "stacking" will (someday) be officially allowed. It doesn't have to be "just another smiley collecting opportunity" but an opportunity to meet new people, visit new places, search for new caches and just have a fun day!

 

*Ten 5-minute events within ten meters in a row, for example. Of course this is just my opinion. "Multiple events organized in a small area in a short period of time" can be interpreted just the way you want.

 

I've been to many events that had numerous different elements. They were great fun. The idea that someone needs to rack up another smiley for each element of an event is just plain silly to me. What is wrong with getting together for the sake of getting together? If the numbers hounds want to crank up their smiley count please hit the local power trail and leave events for socializing.

 

I realize that the numbers hounds rule geocaching today, but can't you leave your paws off just this one aspect of geocaching?

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

Apparently there is nothing wrong with smiley collecting opportunities. Even people who don't like power trails agree that the opportunity to get a lot of finds in a short time makes them popular. So why not provide the same opportunity with events?

 

If you're not "into numbers" you don't have to do a power trail or attend all twelve events. I find this attitude that numbers per se are evil a bit arrogant. You can make arguments why "for-the-nubmers" is bad for geocaching or why it makes your geocaching less enjoyable. But I don't understand the need to belittle people who would find something like this enjoyable.

 

I suspect part of the issue is that it's hard to tell when event stacking is going to be allowed and when multiple events will be denied. While there has been a move to allow more multiple events recently, some reviewers still use the stacking rule when if feel there isn't a clear reason for making separate events. My guess is that the twelve 12/12/12 events were approved as a one time exception. After all this is the last triple date most of us will be alive to see. While I expect to see more stacking of events, I doubt we will be seeing more twelve event stacks.

 

Are you honestly telling me that this isn't about stats?

Where did I say that?

 

I certainly can't tell you the motivation of the organizers. I suspect they knew that the "numbers hounds" would show up for the events to get the stats. But they many have truly felt that having 12 events was a fun way to celebrate 12/12/12.

 

Why do you care the some people are motivated by numbers? I'm not particularly motivated by numbers and I may even agree that caches (or events) that are placed primarily for the extra smiley opportunity are less fun (for me). But I find that it's pretty easy to ignore events I don't want to attend. It may be harder to ignore all the caches in a power trail if you are unfortunate to have one nearby, but still it isn't hard to avoid these caches.

 

If you believe this style of geocaching cause issues that affect your geocaching feel free to express this. However I find it arrogant and silly to criticize someone's motivations.

 

I realize that the numbers hounds rule geocaching today, but can't you leave your paws off just this one aspect of geocaching?

So what particular harm is there to briansnat because some cachers in Helsinki had 12 events on the same day? Even if there were 12 events on the same day in northern New Jersey, I would think it would have little effect on you. You don't need to attend the events. Why get upset because there are people with higher find counts than you? Why care that they spend time doing power trails and attending stacked events, when you prefer hiking caches and events that last at least a few hours? If you are enjoying the caches you find and the events you attend, why care what someone else's statistics are?

 

I understand that if you've been around for a while it may seen like there are more caches you don't enjoy and more events you don't care to attend. I can remember when I would travel throughout Southern California to attend events. There are too many events now so I pick and choose the ones that seem more interesting and better organized. Just as I try to pick and choose the caches that look more interesting.

Link to comment

I think you missed my point. I was trying to say that Groundspeak (or more accurately, the reviewers) may make their decisions based on the motive. At least, that was my main point.

 

OK. I'll give you that. But that brings the point of who are "they" to decide who's events merit stacking? They should either be allowed or not. They don't want to judge "wow factor" for virtuals, they should not be in the business of validating reasons for event plans either.

While I totally agree with you on all points, I must answer that "they" are the ones that "own" the game. If they decide they want to get back into the "wow factor" business, that's their decision. I hope that isn't what's going on, though.
Link to comment

What about those 24 "stacked" events for a 24 hour period (one every hour) that was featured on PodCachers this summer? I would say that was the precedent.

I'm not familiar with these events. Enlighten us?

DGS Day with 24 events

tsk, tsk, tsk...

 

i was waiting for someone to link those events. TY!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=d07b63d4-d269-45e1-a877-dc77cd6ec8d4

 

Next year we will go bigger and better. Thanks to all who showed up and showed support for the DGS. SEE YOU ALL NEXT YEAR!!

Link to comment
It sort of misses the entire point of events. I'm sad to see events morph into just another smiley collecting opportunity.

...an opportunity to spend an entire day caching together. A single event would not work for that.

Not sure I follow the logic here. :unsure:

Assuming that socializing at an event is "caching", (which I believe is true).

 

Wouldn't a single, all day long event offer the same opportunity? :unsure:

 

Anything else is just cranking up numbers. <_<

Link to comment

I think you missed my point. I was trying to say that Groundspeak (or more accurately, the reviewers) may make their decisions based on the motive. At least, that was my main point.

 

OK. I'll give you that. But that brings the point of who are "they" to decide who's events merit stacking? They should either be allowed or not. They don't want to judge "wow factor" for virtuals, they should not be in the business of validating reasons for event plans either.

While I totally agree with you on all points, I must answer that "they" are the ones that "own" the game. If they decide they want to get back into the "wow factor" business, that's their decision. I hope that isn't what's going on, though.

 

No. They don't own the game. They own this listing service. While it is true that they can list (or not) whatever they choose; having rules and disregarding them, making up rules out of thin air, or applying rules (stated or not) unequally based upon real or imagined subjective standards is not what I would call a good business model.

 

But since they seem to be the only amphibian of consequence in this particular pond, I guess we all just need to shut up, go caching, and be happy they let us play at all. (Too jaded?)

Link to comment
So what particular harm is there to briansnat because some cachers in Helsinki had 12 events on the same day? Even if there were 12 events on the same day in northern New Jersey, I would think it would have little effect on you. You don't need to attend the events. Why get upset because there are people with higher find counts than you? Why care that they spend time doing power trails and attending stacked events, when you prefer hiking caches and events that last at least a few hours? If you are enjoying the caches you find and the events you attend, why care what someone else's statistics are?

 

I have no idea where you get that I'm upset over anybody's find count, some of my best friends have high find counts. I don't give a clam's patootie about other people's numbers. I do care when their pursuit of numbers mucks up the game for me. Events are one of my favorite things about geocaching. If they degenerate into nothing more than a numbers pumping exercise then I won't be attending them anymore. I lose something I enjoy so there's the harm.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

We did have a little of that locally on 12/12/12. I think there were 6 events and they were geographically disparate, so that people in Northern NJ could attend one or another as could people in Southern NJ. Part of our problem locally is that we tend to remain pure in our approach to the game.

 

We had a local custom whereby one cacher sponsoring an event would not step on any other event date. So if BrianSnat had an event on May 1, and I was planning for May 1 and his published first I would move my date. That system allowed for a flow of events.

 

Several years back we had several group hikes (actually about 100 of them) and none of them were called events, although some people felt that I should sponsor them as an event so a smiley could be gotten. I never saw that point as we were hiking and finding caches as we went.

 

I have to join the group that is against the idea of stacking events for just another number.

 

BTW, See my post in Midlatic forum regarding cacher of the year/ aka BrianSnat. We here in NJ are happy that a guy like Brian has been a mentor to our game. His informed and rational and personable approach has allowed our local game to evolve collegially.

Edited by Packanack
Link to comment

I would have to agree with Briansnat. Why not create one event that moves to different locations through the day. Or one event that has a photo, with an area cleanup, then dinner. It is the same people doing the same stuff.

 

Those longer events that people may pop in and out of, are more interesting to me than a scattering of events.

Link to comment

I am obviously way too new to the game to understand why (some of) you make such a big deal about the numbers. I am not judging, just wondering. However, I also don't care at all and that is why I am not going to participate in the talk about numbers. I hope you allow me that.

 

What is wrong with getting together for the sake of getting together?

Did I say there is something wrong with getting together for the sake of getting together? If I did, I beg your pardon, I certainly didn't mean to. I attend and organize events because I love meeting and spending time with other geocachers.

 

What comes to an "all day long" event... I have been thinking more about it after I made the topic. I've never attended one myself (except for Mega Finland this year, but I don't think I should compare a "normal" event to it) so I don't know how it actually works. This means I should take back my word about "a single event not working for spending an entire day caching together". I still do presume that it wouldn't work.

 

What I mean by "not working" is that people would probably just show up, log the book, maybe have a few words with their friends and leave. I know many who attend events because they are (this is not an opinion, it is a fact) easy finds - or numbers, one might say.

I know some (myself included) who would do their best to hang around throughout the entire event. I know even more of those who wouldn't.

 

I've been to many events that had numerous different elements. They were great fun. The idea that someone needs to rack up another smiley for each element of an event is just plain silly to me.

Wouldn't a single, all day long event offer the same opportunity? :unsure:

Anything else is just cranking up numbers. <_<

Why not create one event that moves to different locations through the day. Or one event that has a photo, with an area cleanup, then dinner. It is the same people doing the same stuff.

I understand your point and I can say that I wouldn't mind an "all day" event that takes place in different locations with different activities. What we found out in the twelve events is that people really liked spending an entire day together - but they needed the numbers to give them motivation to do so. Maybe an "all day" event would turn out a great success now that people already know that it will be fun.

 

Somewhere during writing this post I realized that I do, actually, feel sorry for people who only care for the numbers: they are most likely missing out what I think is one of the best parts of the game - fun. And even more sorry for those who work hard to make a nice event just to find out that majority of the attendees only come for a number.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...