[Suggestion] Do not send out announcement logs for events to everyone

[cezanne]

I'm not happy with the feature that announcement logs to events are sent out to everyone. Those who want to receive such logs, can put the event on their watchlist.

 

In my region there exists a local pub event that is listed once a year, but takes places about 6 times per year. One attends a attended log only at most once per year.

If one attends one of the meetings within a year and logs an attended, one gets all further announcements issued in that year by mail.

I'm certainly not interested into learning what kind of dished are offered each time or who has registered (I can see that anyway if I want to see it when looking at the logs since the last meeting).

 

Even for normal events (that take place just on one day) I do not want to be informed about what I did not ask for.

I do understand that owners of cache listings and all watchers get the logs, but I do not understand why I need to be bothered with event announcements.

I'd at least like an option to turn those annocuncements off (for all events). This would allow others to receive them if they are too lazy to put an event on their watch list or do not care.

 

Cezanne

[+JesandTodd]

 

Even for normal events (that take place just on one day) I do not want to be informed about what I did not ask for.

I do understand that owners of cache listings and all watchers get the logs, but I do not understand why I need to be bothered with event announcements.

 

I'd at least like an option to turn those annocuncements off (for all events). This would allow others to receive them if they are too lazy to put an event on their watch list or do not care.

 

Cezanne

If it's on my watchlist, then I get every.single.log. I don't want 100 'sounds fun' logs and then 100 'had a great time logs'. I want the announcements..and only the announcements. That's what the 'will attend' log does

 

It's possible to not log 'will attend' and not be bothered by any of it. Just log a note saying you'll go. There no rule saying you must log the 'will attend' log. But when you do..know that yes..,announcements is exactly what you asked for

 

But don't remove functionality from us because you don't like announcements. And please....I hardly see where using the feature as intended makes us 'lazy'

[+thebruce0]

Yes, the point is that Announcements (when used properly) are supposed to be important pieces of information for everyone who has said they "will attend". If you don't want announcements (which could be a bad thing, when used properly), then just log a note.

 

Secondly, if running an event, use the announcement feature properly! Don't over-announce unimportant things, or things you think some people just don't want or need to hear.

Don't spam.

 

But leave the Announcement feature as is, since it is the only way for the event owner to contact the RSVP list with important information.

 

Also (and probably most significantly), you can easily just delete an email notification if you want without reading it.

[cezanne]

If it's on my watchlist, then I get every.single.log. I don't want 100 'sounds fun' logs and then 100 'had a great time logs'. I want the announcements..and only the announcements. That's what the 'will attend' log does

 

It's possible to not log 'will attend' and not be bothered by any of it. Just log a note saying you'll go. There no rule saying you must log the 'will attend' log. But when you do..know that yes..,announcements is exactly what you asked for

 

I have not logged "will attend" even though the event owner prefers if people do. I just logged "Attended" in July and now get all announcements for all the further meetings and I do not want to receive them. I have not been aware before that announcements are also sent out to those that have attended.

 

But don't remove functionality from us because you don't like announcements. And please....I hardly see where using the feature as intended makes us 'lazy'

 

As I said, I'm also content if they provide a switch for turning off "announcement logs" or they could also limit it to those who logged a "will attend".

[cezanne]

Yes, the point is that Announcements (when used properly) are supposed to be important pieces of information for everyone who has said they "will attend". If you don't want announcements (which could be a bad thing, when used properly), then just log a note.

 

As explained, I did not log a "will attend". The announcements are sent also to those who logged "attended".

 

I never ever will miss an important piece of information for an event that I'm going to attend because I look at the cache page and I also do not belong to those who forget to

log out trackables. Messages of the type "It was nice to see you at the event and please do not forget to log out the trackables still logged in" is definitely not something I need as an email. Messages like this one are directed to those who are lazy, forget things or do nor care at all. I do not need them.

 

I cannot change the habits around here. This includes sending any kind of owner log for events using the announcement type and this also includes events which are listed oncem but take place several times a year. Just because I take part in January, I'm not interested in announcements for all further editions dealt via the same listing.

 

What is important to some is completely irrelevant to others. Many of the locals attend the event I mentioned as example due to the special buffet which is offered there and thus regard what is offered at the next meeting as something important while I regard this as spam.

 

But leave the Announcement feature as is, since it is the only way for the event owner to contact the RSVP list with important information.

 

I do not think that an event owner needs to reach those who have already attended the event with something important.

Moreover, a switch that allows to turn off announcements would be fine for me, too.

 

Also (and probably most significantly), you can easily just delete an email notification if you want without reading it.

 

Yes, I can, but I still I regard these mails as annoying.

 

You can also easily delete those mails that annoy you when you put an event on your watchlist.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 24, 2013 by cezanne

[BoredRoom]

The announcements are sent also to those who logged "attended".

 

It doesn't make sense to post announcements for an event that has already occurred.

 

Better to simply disable the announcement log type if the event's date has passed.

Edited October 24, 2013 by BoredRoom

[+thebruce0]

Yes, cezanne - apologies as I clearly misread your post about Announcements being sent to people who only post "Attended" logs to an event.

 

I only somewhat agree however... Ideally, I think that announcements should still be sent to people who have Attended an event - there may be leftover news or information that is relevant to those who have attended (lost and found? group photos? etc). Ideally, I believe the CO should not re-use Event listings for further future events - let alone continue to spam attendees of an event that has taken place long ago, with information no longer relevant to that event.

 

Ideally:

1) Announcements should be sent to Will Attend loggers

2) Announcements should be sent to Attended loggers post-event

3) Event organizers should only use Announcement post-event for important and specific event-related information, then archive the event.

 

I can support, however, the suggestion to provide the option for removing oneself from the recipient list of Announcements after an event has concluded, in the case of EO's who consistently use the Announcement to spam past attendees, considering they're unable to opt out without removing their Attended log.

 

Maybe someone should post that in the suggestion forum...

 

Have you tried adding the event you have logged as Attended to your ignore list? Will that stop further announcements from being sent to you? That could be a nice workaround for now if it works (but something tells me it won't)

Edited October 24, 2013 by thebruce0

[cezanne]

Ideally, I believe the CO should not re-use Event listings for further future events - let alone continue to spam attendees of an event that has taken place long ago, with information no longer relevant to that event.

 

The local community wants to have it that way. On the one hand, there is added flexibility with moving the dates or inserting an extra event if something special arises and on the other hand,

there are many that feel that events get cheapened if each edition within the same year counts as a find separately. I also think that this cheapens events, but my person solution would be to organize such local regular meetings outside of geocaching.com (that was done in the early days of geocaching in my region) and keep the event type for special things.

 

The typical audience for the example event I have in mind attend many times during the year while I typically do not attend the event. I was there only once because a friend from another town wanted to go there and I came along. Given this situation I do not have any hope that the local habits will be changed and also no hope that the cache owner could be convinced not to use a note instead of an announcement log for things like who wrote a will attend log or what dishes will be offered next time.

 

I cannot test whether the ignore option would work as I'm not a PM (for non financial reasons).

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

We have a local geocaching event every 2 months. I haven't seen any event listing reused for another at all in the greater region around here (Ontario Canada) and we have a lot of events. And I believe all our reviewers would request the event owners create a new listing for a new event - whether it's part of a regular series of events or not.

 

I most certainly believe that an annual event should definitely warrant unique event listings. For numerous reasons...

But as you say, the difference may be localized if that's the way people would like things to work in your area, so I can see why that structure would be a problem.

 

I suggest unique event listings.

And the option to disable receiving announcements for past events you've attended (or didn't but previously posted a will attend).

Edited October 24, 2013 by thebruce0

[+Lil Devil]

Don't log an "Attended" log until the last event of the year. Problem solved.

[+tozainamboku]

Sounds like a corner case for an unusual use of the event page.

 

Just how many of these announcement are you getting? If there is only one or two every other month, how hard is it to move the email to the trash folder? If the announcements are being used every day then you might contact Groundspeak about a cache owner using the announcement feature to spam the list of all prior attendees. They might force the owner to archive the listing and use a new one for each event.

[cezanne]

Don't log an "Attended" log until the last event of the year. Problem solved.

 

I simply was not aware of the fact that those who log an attended log receive announcements - I thought that this only applies to "will attend" logs.

I did not attend many events after the introduction of

this feature. I do not want to delete my log from the Summer.

 

I will most probably not attend that event in the future again anyway (not due to the announcement logs) - so after the end of the year this

example event will not be an issue for me again. However, such events are not so uncommon and have been the standard way

to hold such events for a long time in many places in Germany and Austria. In the last 2-3 years this has changed, but still

events are held in the old way.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

We have a local geocaching event every 2 months. I haven't seen any event listing reused for another at all in the greater region around here (Ontario Canada) and we have a lot of events. And I believe all our reviewers would request the event owners create a new listing for a new event - whether it's part of a regular series of events or not.

 

The reuse of event listings for pub events held every month or every 2 months has been almost the standard approach Germany and Austria in the early years. There are still events of that type while the majority has changed over to new listings for each event.

 

The issue is not the unwillingness of reviewers to publish new listings, but of course the 14 days need to be respected.

 

I most certainly believe that an annual event should definitely warrant unique event listings. For numerous reasons...

 

An annual event yes, but in the specific example each year a new listing with a name like "Meet and greet City X 2013" (this is not a real name) is published

and this listing is then used say 8 times within the year for 8 meetings in 2013. The events are not held on dates fixed long in advance

and not always in a regular pattern - i.e. not say on every second Tuesday every other month or something like that.

 

However attends at least one of the 8 events in 2013 logs "Attended" once (and not for each attendance). The other attendances are then logged as notes.

 

The majority of the local people feel that logging eight visits in 2013 for this type of events cheapens events and does not make them special any more.

 

 

And the option to disable receiving announcements for past events you've attended (or didn't but previously posted a will attend).

 

The option I'd like to have does not seem to be more complicated to implement than the first option you mention. The second would be fine for me anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 24, 2013 by cezanne

[+thebruce0]

I most certainly believe that an annual event should definitely warrant unique event listings. For numerous reasons...

 

An annual event yes, but in the specific example each year a new listing with a name like "Meet and greet City X 2013" (this is not a real name) is published

and this listing is then used say 8 times within the year for 8 meetings in 2013. The events are not held on dates fixed long in advance

and not always in a regular pattern - i.e. not say on every second Tuesday every other month or something like that.

 

However attends at least one of the 8 events in 2013 logs "Attended" once (and not for each attendance). The other attendances are then logged as notes.

 

The majority of the local people feel that logging eight visits in 2013 for this type of events cheapens events and does not make them special any more.

That's unfortunate... Really, those 8 meetings could be organized elsewhere, outside of the gc.com event listing.

Or yeah it would be solved if one could opt out of announcement notifications after the event date.

[+Don_J]

If it's on my watchlist, then I get every.single.log. I don't want 100 'sounds fun' logs and then 100 'had a great time logs'. I want the announcements..and only the announcements. That's what the 'will attend' log does

 

It's possible to not log 'will attend' and not be bothered by any of it. Just log a note saying you'll go. There no rule saying you must log the 'will attend' log. But when you do..know that yes..,announcements is exactly what you asked for

 

I have not logged "will attend" even though the event owner prefers if people do. I just logged "Attended" in July and now get all announcements for all the further meetings and I do not want to receive them. I have not been aware before that announcements are also sent out to those that have attended.

 

But don't remove functionality from us because you don't like announcements. And please....I hardly see where using the feature as intended makes us 'lazy'

 

As I said, I'm also content if they provide a switch for turning off "announcement logs" or they could also limit it to those who logged a "will attend".

 

I have a feeling that you would be twice as frustrated to show up for an event and find that it was canceled, and you didn't get the announcement.

 

The proper way to fix this would be to require each event to have it's own listing with it's own unique GC id. I will never understand why old event listings are allowed to be reused. When the event is over and everyone who attended has logged, it should be archived. When it's time for the next event, create a new listing for it.

[+Don_J]

Ideally, I believe the CO should not re-use Event listings for further future events - let alone continue to spam attendees of an event that has taken place long ago, with information no longer relevant to that event.

 

The local community wants to have it that way. On the one hand, there is added flexibility with moving the dates or inserting an extra event if something special arises and on the other hand,

there are many that feel that events get cheapened if each edition within the same year counts as a find separately. I also think that this cheapens events, but my person solution would be to organize such local regular meetings outside of geocaching.com (that was done in the early days of geocaching in my region) and keep the event type for special things.

 

The typical audience for the example event I have in mind attend many times during the year while I typically do not attend the event. I was there only once because a friend from another town wanted to go there and I came along. Given this situation I do not have any hope that the local habits will be changed and also no hope that the cache owner could be convinced not to use a note instead of an announcement log for things like who wrote a will attend log or what dishes will be offered next time.

 

I cannot test whether the ignore option would work as I'm not a PM (for non financial reasons).

 

Cezanne

 

This means that things are happening that are escaping the review process. Whether the locals like it this way or not should not be the issue. When the event is over it should be archived and the next event created, reviewed and published, just like any other new cache.

 

Right now, I could take last month's event and change it for next month and add an agenda to it, or additional logging requirements and unless the reviewer is watching or someone reports me, I can hold events that violate the guidelines.

 

I totally agree that you should not be receiving announcements for an event that occurred months ago, but I don't think opting out is the solution.

[cezanne]

I have a feeling that you would be twice as frustrated to show up for an event and find that it was canceled, and you didn't get the announcement.

 

That could never happen to me as I of course always check the event page before leaving and after leaving no announcement of any form will help me.

 

The proper way to fix this would be to require each event to have it's own listing with it's own unique GC id. I will never understand why old event listings are allowed to be reused. When the event is over and everyone who attended has logged, it should be archived. When it's time for the next event, create a new listing for it.

 

The local community (large) prefers it the other way.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

Right now, I could take last month's event and change it for next month and add an agenda to it, or additional logging requirements and unless the reviewer is watching or someone reports me, I can hold events that violate the guidelines.

 

In principle yes, but in the concrete example there quickly would be someone reporting this to a reviewer.

The text stays the same, except that the new date is added (the history of the year is built in this manner) and the hidden date of the event is changed.

 

As I said the intent is not to break the guidelines, but not to cheapen events. The series of events held within the same year is seen as one geocaching.com event.

It would be more convenient if Groundspeak had a special way to deal with such "events".

 

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

As I said the intent is not to break the guidelines, but not to cheapen events. The series of events held within the same year is seen as one geocaching.com event.

It would be more convenient if Groundspeak had a special way to deal with such "events".

 

But it's not. It's multiple events belonging to a themed series. They should be listed as separate events. An "event" is a single date event. If an "event" could run multiple times, they would have created the ability to list multiple dates.

No, this is incorrect usage of the Event listing, and the problem you're having may well be fixed (for the most part) by disallowing people to re-use event listings (whether or not they're trying to 'break the guidelines'

 

What's the reasoning behind re-using event listing? To not saturate the map with events? We have 6 events per year, all under the same theme. Is it laziness, like why just duplicate one event content to another listing? Separate listings for events makes things much easier for everyone even if it is a few more clicks for the owner to set it up. *shrug* I don't see any decent reason to allow re-use of event listing multiple times.

Edited October 30, 2013 by thebruce0

[+Team Monkeyboy]

An easy way to fix this "problem" is for Groundspeak to prevent users from changing the date of an event with "attended" logs... if it was already attended, then there's no reason for the date to be changed... then automatically archive events that haven't been archived 60 days after the listed event date. We actually get notices in our area from our reviewers for events that are still unarchived after a month, which we should.

 

POST new events to new listings - don't reuse old ones. If it's not the same event on the same date, it shouldn't be the same GC code - pretty basic.

 

Is it more work for the cache owners? Yes. But really... how hard is it to copy/paste the info to another listing and change a few words here and there before you archive the old one? And as long as you're following the guidelines and getting the listings submitted before the 14 day deadline, there should be no hassles getting the new event published. If there is hassles, then there's a problem that needs dealt with anyway, instead of trying to slide it past the reviewers by reusing old listings.

 

What's the point in only being able to log an event once even though I attended several times? Yeah, I could log multiple "attend" logs for the same event, but that really screws with your log count.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Team Monkeyboy

[+thebruce0]

And, if the listing is only being used to facilitate organization of future related events, and has no intention of being relevant to profiles or stats (both for the organizer and future attendees who like that system), then the organizer should use another tool, because the default use for the listing is a single event, and the users who expect that are being put out by its excessive and incorrect use. Use email, or a facebook group, or something; it's not that painful . GC Event listings should be one-time use, even though there's allowance for necessary adjustments.

[cezanne]

As I said the intent is not to break the guidelines, but not to cheapen events. The series of events held within the same year is seen as one geocaching.com event.

It would be more convenient if Groundspeak had a special way to deal with such "events".

 

But it's not. It's multiple events belonging to a themed series. They should be listed as separate events. An "event" is a single date event. If an "event" could run multiple times, they would have created the ability to list multiple dates.

 

It's probably something that has its origins in the local history. For many years it was customary in Austria and some parts of Germany to handle events like this and

in case of changing locations (not the case here) the reviewers even contributed by shifting the header coordinates each time.

 

Most people around here feel that there is a difference between an event taking place in the same inn about every other month (or each month in some cases) and what they regard as

real event (something unique and special).

 

I guess if Groundspeak offered a chance to announce local informal meetings on the web page and make them visible also to a larger group, then this option would be used instead of the solution still in use. However, Groundspeak does not show any interest to provide such a support and using newsgroups, Facebook etc will always exclude people (I would not mind that personally, but the organizers do) and limit the event to locals and experienced cachers.

 

 

What's the reasoning behind re-using event listing? To not saturate the map with events?

 

No. See above. The event takes place at the same place each time - so it makes no difference whether the same event is shown on the map throughout a year or whether after the archival of one, the next shows up at the same place.

 

It is a different idea about the concept of an event.

 

If a had to organize such a event, the fact that I would end up with 6 event icons on the hidden side would by the way annoy me too. (Yes, one could come up with a sockpuppet account, but that's also not too popular and has other disadvantages).

 

Cezanne

Edited November 5, 2013 by cezanne

[cezanne]

What's the point in only being able to log an event once even though I attended several times? Yeah, I could log multiple "attend" logs for the same event, but that really screws with your log count.

 

Multiple logs are strongly discouraged and so far no one has logged more than one attended per year even though many have been there at any edition.

 

As I said the best solution would be some support on gc.com (that's where people look for it and nowhere else) for such series meetings without setting up an event at all, but that

will never happen.

 

 

Cezanne

[+thebruce0]

So, I know you've already said it's a local preference thing... but as you admitted, you're looking for a solution that will never happen, and frankly I think for good reason. The solutions we've mentioned above really are the best, if the only, bets.

 

It's probably something that has its origins in the local history. For many years it was customary in Austria and some parts of Germany to handle events like this and in case of changing locations (not the case here) the reviewers even contributed by shifting the header coordinates each time.

 

Most people around here feel that there is a difference between an event taking place in the same inn about every other month (or each month in some cases) and what they regard as real event (something unique and special).

First, every event is unique and special

Second, we have a local event here as well, that takes place every other month and in the same location each time (with the odd exception). There's zero issue with multiple listings, no complaints from any organizer or attendee about any amount of extra work in dealing with unique listings, not in the slightest... it's just how it works; it's how event listings are implied to work, and how they've always been done here.

Again, it might be different where you are, but you yourself noticed that there is an annoyance with that structure, and the solution you're looking for - that retains that structure - will likely never happen. So, our best suggestion, again, is to encourage your organizers (and reviewers) to convert to the generally accepted way of using unique listings for each event

 

I guess if Groundspeak offered a chance to announce local informal meetings on the web page and make them visible also to a larger group, then this option would be used instead of the solution still in use. However, Groundspeak does not show any interest to provide such a support and using newsgroups, Facebook etc will always exclude people (I would not mind that personally, but the organizers do) and limit the event to locals and experienced cachers.

Email will never exclude people.

Event listings have notifications when they're published that previous non-attendees will never see if they're not uniquely published.

The log history of an event won't accurately reflect the details of past events if the listing is consistently re-used.

 

Now, I could see a possible excuse for re-using an event listing: if the event itself is advertised as a year-long recurring event, and requests that users only post a will attend or attended log once, for the very reasons we're describing. I don't know if Groundspeak would allow year-long events though, even if the posted date is the 'start' date.

The presumption, again, is that the event occurs on the posted date. When complete, geocachers log their Attended log, which count towards their statistics. It's a single-use event listing. Once complete, it's eventually archived (should be).

 

No. See above. The event takes place at the same place each time - so it makes no difference whether the same event is shown on the map throughout a year or whether after the archival of one, the next shows up at the same place.

 

It is a different idea about the concept of an event.

As mentioned above, we have the very same structure for a regular event here - but using individual listings.

 

If a had to organize such a event, the fact that I would end up with 6 event icons on the hidden side would by the way annoy me too. (Yes, one could come up with a sockpuppet account, but that's also not too popular and has other disadvantages).

"on the hidden side"? You mean when you view your owned caches, you'll have an ever growing list of archived event listings pushed further to the end as time goes on. That's the only 'annoyance', and that's nothing compared to archiving a power trail, for instance

 

Multiple logs are strongly discouraged and so far no one has logged more than one attended per year even though many have been there at any edition.

But what if someone wants to for their stats? They're now forced to post multiple attended logs for a single event (which is 100% 'legal', though can make stats messy, likely multiple finds on a single cache)

 

As I said the best solution would be some support on gc.com (that's where people look for it and nowhere else) for such series meetings without setting up an event at all, but that will never happen.

That would be another type of event (as commented above), and perhaps it could be suggested. Unlikely to happen, sure, but asking for a different type of event listing is different than mutating event listings into doing something they aren't conceptually supposed to do...

 

Apart from local tradition, I'm not personally season any good reason yet to continue using a single event listing for multiple recurring events...

Edited November 5, 2013 by thebruce0