Event Guidelines Changes & Hoosier Reviewer's Summary Of Them

[+-CJ-]

The language limiting "stacked events" was present in the prior version of the guidelines. We reviewers have relied upon it for years. If readers did not appreciate the meaning of the prior language -- particularly those in countries where English is not the primary language -- then it's good that the new, clearer language has replaced the prior version.

 

I live in country where English is not the primary language, I'm a volunteer translator and (sorry) I cannot fully agree.

 

Old version of "Stacked Events" guideline language:

For caching 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.

 

This guideline relates to events that have several elements. For example, if I invite people to join me in a park for a 2 hours walk and then to celebrate the date in a cafe these two "events" should not be published as two separate instances at geocaching.com. The way to improve this language would be to give the words "on its own merits" some additional explanation in a Help Center article.

 

New version:

Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event. Additional waypoints may be added to the event listing for the locations of event activities.

 

The guideline was amended with "events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience". You probably think that this is a "clearer language" because you have one specific situation in mind ("stacked events"). However this language actually extends the limitation to events which have no signs of "stacked events" criteria - for example, two events organized in one city on one day independently. The vague wording "near the same time or location" and "the same audience" shows green light to interpretations.

 

With the new guidelines one can be disallowed to publish an event to celebrate "a souvenir date" in his city only because there's already some event in this very city with the same idea and on the same day. The previous guidelines had no such restrictions.

Edited February 1, 2014 by -CJ-

[Clan Riffster]

I like the comparison between the clarification of the event stacking guideline, and the prohibition against buried caches guideline, specifically as related to comprehension. In both cases, a semantics oriented individual could easily get mired in the minutiae of language. Or, one could simply fall back onto the purpose of the guideline in question. Makes things a lot easier.

[+palmetto]

The language limiting "stacked events" was present in the prior version of the guidelines. We reviewers have relied upon it for years. If readers did not appreciate the meaning of the prior language -- particularly those in countries where English is not the primary language -- then it's good that the new, clearer language has replaced the prior version.

 

Old version of "Stacked Events" guideline language:

For caching 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.

New version:

Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event. Additional waypoints may be added to the event listing for the locations of event activities.

 

Language prior to Jan 28, 2014

multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits

 

With this language, hosts were submitting as separate event listings activities in close proximity.

Recently submitted event examples: in a small park, 5 flash mobs in 1 hour. If the group is going to walk around in the park for about an hour, that's fine, but it's one event listing ,not 5. That any one of the flashmobs would be published by itself makes clarifying "stands on its own merits" very difficult. I think the new wording is far clearer.

 

For a day in the park, 11 separate events submitted, some modest location differences on these, but all within the same urban park, one after another in time: sign/in TB exchange, ammo can toss, camo-ing containers, judging of camo'ed containers, potluck lunch, gift exchange, walk around the lake (hunting new caches), awards for Poker Run caches, BBQ dinner, after dinner S'mores, post event area CITO.

 

The people who submitted these honestly thought that they met the guideline, that they could and ought to submit multiple listings. I declined to publish that many. I could see a morning event listing and a separate afternoon - evening event listing in the same park on the same day.

Many people would attend one or the other, but not both. The CITO had no shot as submitted. A CITO there on that day needed to have park management involvement, be something that took advantage of the available labor pool and was something that park management wanted done. It read as quick event clean up.

 

I hope that new language isn't used to restrict multiple events where there is real difference between one and another, but I know that the old language was creating confusion and disappointment among event hosts.

[+-CJ-]

Clan Riffster: you're right, these two cases are similar. We've had enough discussions about the reason for geocaches not to be buried. More cachers have come since then and asked us about this rule because it hasn't been explained in the guidelines. The fact that someone knows "the purpose" doesn't mean yet that everyone knows it (especially in communities where English is not the primary language).

 

One who introduced changes to the guidelines could get rid of vague wording and/or add a help article. Do you think it is possible?

Edited February 1, 2014 by -CJ-

[+JL_HSTRE]

Based on some of the comments in this thread, especially by Reviewers, I am curious to hear reactions to CITO Marathons. For example, a series of trash cleanups that start at one end of a county and end up at the other end of the county. There a 30 minute gap between events because it is about a 15 minute drive between CITO locations; each CITO lasts for 1 hour. Each CITO has a different CO.

 

One person could attend all 6-8 CITOs, but some people will only attend the ones near their end of the county (or simply not have the time/energy to attend all of them).

 

Would something like this still be okay?

[+CanadianRockies]

I don't think preparing a site for an event warrants a CITO any more than cleaning up.

I wouldn't expect the site of an event to require CITO either. My thought was that if the site did require cleaning up beyond "cleaning up our own mess", then it would require cleaning up before the event. In that case, scheduling the CITO before the event makes it clear that the site requires CITO, and that the CITO is not just "cleaning up our own mess".

I think one point being made is that it's the responsibility of the regular event organizers/participants to get a location ready for that event and to clean up afterwards. If you don't want to have your BBQ amidst a bunch of rubbish, then pick up that rubbish ahead of time, but do it as part of the regular event rather than as a CITO.

 

Another point being made is that CITOs should clearly be seen as a service that geocachers are doing for the community at large. Yes, the picnic area around that regular BBQ event will be clean for the community to use after the BBQ as well as for the geocachers who use it during the BBQ. But the community-service optics aren't as good in that situation versus doing a CITO of a picnic area where geocachers arrive, pick up trash, and leave immediately afterwards. In the latter case, the geocachers' actions clearly demonstrate much less self-interest.

[Clan Riffster]

Based on some of the comments in this thread, especially by Reviewers, I am curious to hear reactions to CITO Marathons. For example, a series of trash cleanups that start at one end of a county and end up at the other end of the county. There a 30 minute gap between events because it is about a 15 minute drive between CITO locations; each CITO lasts for 1 hour. Each CITO has a different CO.

 

One person could attend all 6-8 CITOs, but some people will only attend the ones near their end of the county (or simply not have the time/energy to attend all of them).

 

Would something like this still be okay?

Good question. Is a 15 minute drive between events qualify as sufficient distance to satisfy the somewhat vague proximity aspect of the event stacking guideline? Or is that too close? If we fall back on the idea that one purpose of the guideline clarification was to discourage the mindless accumulation of smilies at events, then this might best be written up as one, maybe two, CITO events, with multiple additional waypoints?

 

Specifics:

(Note: Distance is driving time, as measured by Google Earth)

 

It started with a CITO from 7:00 a.m. till 8:00 a.m.

http://coord.info/GC46CHH

 

Then another CITO from 8:30 a.m. till 9:30 a.m.

7.7 miles away, 13 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46CH5

 

Then another CITO from 10:00 a.m. till 11:00 a.m

13.5 miles away, 19 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46K77

 

Then another CITO from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

2.6 miles away, 6 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46GHH

 

Then a lunch event from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.

6.6 miles away, 12 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46B5A

 

Then another CITO from 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

4.8 miles away, 9 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46B1V

 

Then another CITO from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

10.6 miles away, 15 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46BXP

 

Then the final CITO from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

6.2 miles away, 7 minutes drive time

http://coord.info/GC46DJH

 

Then a dinner event from 7:00 p.m. to ???

3.9 miles away, 8 minutes drive time.

http://coord.info/GC46B2N

Edited February 1, 2014 by Clan Riffster

[+RedKnight]

So how did these three get approved?

 

The events are GC4WXAC, GC4WXAT & GC4WXBH. They are called TWC's Triple Play ... GPS/Geocaching 101, Lunch and Creative Cache Building. All three are on the same day, at the same place, with times that are back to back.

 

There are also GC4Z7JC and GC4BGXM (GeoWoodstock Meet and Greet & GeoWoodstock). These two are not in the same location (maybe a block away), nor are they on the same day, but they are "intended for the same audience". And it has already been said that events within 24 hours of each other might be considered "Stacked", even more so that they are 2 events for the same group.

[+briansnat]

So how did these three get approved?

 

The events are GC4WXAC, GC4WXAT & GC4WXBH. They are called TWC's Triple Play ... GPS/Geocaching 101, Lunch and Creative Cache Building. All three are on the same day, at the same place, with times that are back to back.

 

 

That's pretty lame. I'm surprised they didn't add two events for bathroom breaks.

[+JL_HSTRE]

There are also GC4Z7JC and GC4BGXM (GeoWoodstock Meet and Greet & GeoWoodstock). These two are not in the same location (maybe a block away), nor are they on the same day, but they are "intended for the same audience". And it has already been said that events within 24 hours of each other might be considered "Stacked", even more so that they are 2 events for the same group.

 

I think "withing 24 hours" is intended to mean the same day, but worded so that no chuckleheads try to hold say one event at 11PM and another at Midnight. A Friday evening event followed by a Saturday "main event" should continue to fly IMO. From personal experience with big weekend events (related events in the same area on Fri/Sat/Sun, with the main event on Saturday) you will get people who only attend the Saturday main event, usually because they live within a couple hours driving distance and make a daytrip out of it.