Jump to content

Groundspeaks lays down some event time rules...


ArtieD

Recommended Posts

How is that listing NOT about the activity of visiting that Preserve on a special hike? That description met the guideline requirements, and it met the focus of getting people to participate in the "activity".

 

Your listing is of course both about the hike and about what's the actual event for Groundspeak.

I referred to it as a hack because all what counts for Groundspeak is the 30 minutes somewhere fiddled in. It's disappointing for me that this is their approach to events which does the contrary of encouraging events of the type I enjoy the most. It makes it harder and more tiresome to come up with ways to still achieving the intended goal if possible at all.

 

 

You, yes you can think of the event as anything you want, up to and including the activity outside of the minimum 30-minute window requirement.

 

The way Groundspeak formulates the guidelines they make everyone think that the event in your case is not the activity.

Otherwise they could choose a formulation that relates to the logging process of events, but not to how an event is defined (which is actually what they do and at the same time argue with the socializing aspect which does not seem to fit together in my opinion).

 

It's a bit like if multi caches could only be implemented by hidind a traditiona (with a log book which is relevant for the logging) and then provide the further description in the container of the traditional. I guess such caches would end up with much less positive logs and much less favourite points than if they could be set up as real multi caches where the whole experience is an integral part of what has its value and official appreciation and recognition on Groundspeak's site.

Link to comment

It seems the issue it not the time limit but the guideline saying an event "takes place at the posted coordinates". I'm not sure when this particular phrase got added, or what discussion there may have been at the time.

 

The way events are entered in the Geocaching.com database there has to be an associated set of coordinates. This is a good thing as geocachers can search for events nearby (either where they are or where they plan to be). However it isn't clear why an entire event must take place at a fixed location.

 

What would be wrong with having an event that says "Meet at 9 AM at N34 18.000 W118 09.000. At promptly 9:05 AM we will leave for a hike of the area. Show up a few minutes early and socialize so you won't be late. The hike will take approximately one hour."

 

In the past this was a legitimate event listing. People knew where to go and when to be there and they participated in whatever activity was planned.

 

I suspect that Groundspeak got complaints from people who were unable to participate in the activity that they were be being excluded (I'm entitled to the smiley for just showing up at start). Perhaps there were instances where the ability to have this kind of activity was abused; a hidden agenda to turn the hike into a cache hunt (but the primary reason given for the event is to go hiking) or a perception of a commercial aspect because of a fee to participate.

 

I'd personally like to see the ability to hold events that are centered on an activity other than sitting in a room reading name tags. Limiting events to a fixed location for at least half an hour seems an undue burden on those who want to have a more active event.

Link to comment
And that's fine. Instead of hypotheticals, I would like to see this event get submitted.
I'd like to see an event like this listed too. Unfortunately, I am not a docent myself, and the geocaching docents I know who used to hold "unevents" like this have moved out of the area. But they made them unevents to keep the size more manageable, so they probably wouldn't list their hikes as events on geocaching.com anyway. But there are other preserves in the area where the attendance of an event would be lower, just because the preserves are more remote and harder to get to. Or maybe it could be listed as an event, but attendance could be limited to the first n people who signed up. (But that's another discussion.)

 

Hence, the "semi-hypothetical" nature of my example.

 

My best guess, based on what I've seen for interactions with Reviewers, is that a cache like you've described could still get published. Additionally, there's nothing stopping this event from having a listed start time window of 30 minutes to allow folks to show up and not miss out if they don't get there "in time". If this docent is also a cacher, and also the organizer of the event, they'll likely already be there anyway to greet and orient people for 30 minutes on site, and then continue the "tour".
Sure, there's nothing stopping the docents from arriving 30 minutes early. It hasn't been necessary for any of the docent-led hikes I've joined, but there's nothing stopping it.

 

And it's really beside the point. The question is whether this 30-minute period in the parking lot is required before the hike can be listed as an event, and whether this required 30-minute period in the parking lot is effectively the event being listed, rather than the hike itself.

Link to comment

I just wonder why it is socializing to talk with others cachers about geocaching while eating pizza and drinking beer while it is not socializing to talk with other cachers while walking along a forest trail (just two arbitrary examples). I simply do not get it.

While there are other parts of the GS event ruling that I'm more confused about, I have to agree that this particular aspect seems just wrong. Obviously these rulings are trying to address some serious problems, but I don't know what those problems are, I've never seen any problem with events, and I, too, do not get what will be better about insisting that an event must be at a single fixed point. Does anyone know what this "in one spot" rule is trying to prevent?

 

The Guidelines don't spell out a host's responsibility. I digressed a bit by applying my paradigm of an event where someone(s) is leading the festivities. Perhaps other regions have "hostless" events?

OK, thanks for clarifying your position.

 

No, I know of no tradition of hostless events and I don't know of one ever happening in my area. I think I read in the forums about one event that the owner didn't expect to make and another one that the owner got tied up and couldn't make, and I seem to remember reading about one event that no one, not even the host, attended. In one or two of those threads, someone pointed out there's no requirement for a host attending the event and, indeed, I recall someone in yet another thread making the case that the host should file an attended log precisely because there's no reason to assume they attended the event just because they set it up. I'm trying to understand whether these guidelines change any conclusions I've made based on those threads.

 

Besides, I wouldn't even try to spell out an event host's responsibilities because they would vary widely depending on the type, size, and location of an event and are well outside the reach of the Guidelines.

I agree that there's an inherent problem with spelling out the event host's responsibilities, but the problem is that your comments are suggesting that an event's stated time period is defined by when the host is presented at GZ, and if that's the case, then that does in fact spell out a very real and specific responsibility for the host, although not explicitly, which makes it confusing and frustrating. I don't really know whether you were in on the internal discussion or are just interpreting it from the outside with the rest of us, so I'm not taking what you say as gospel, but what's important is that if the now very specific minimum time requirement is not defined by when the host is present, then what is it defined by? Because it's the only definition I thought would be reasonable, my original impression was that the event's time would be defined by when someone could log an attended by showing up at GZ, something that doesn't require the host to be at GZ, thus freeing the host to do any of the several things people are saying are now ruled out, such as leaving as soon as the mob has flashed or leaving GZ to lead a hike.

Link to comment

If I wanted to go on a hike with 15 people it would take at least half an hour for everyone to stop chatting, put sunscreen and bugspray on, fuss around with water bottles and backpacks, and wait for stragglers.

+1

Been to a couple of those.

Also a few where it was timed for us to be at the event coords after the long hike.

 

As I've said before, this is the solution that we've always had. I figure that people are hungry after doing an outdoor activity, and it's always nice to gather together afterward and talk about our adventure. So, having the event be a potluck or going to a restaurant afterwards has always worked for us over the years.

Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

A vegetarian will probably not attend an event in a restaurant that only offers meat dishes when it takes place all day.

 

<snip>

 

I have some allergies that make it difficult or impossible to eat at a lot of restaurants. But I still go to events at restaurants, I just don't eat. The only events that I've eaten at in the past four years have been at events that were potlucks.

Link to comment

 

<snip>

 

But that is exactly what I find disappointing. How can be something as trivial and boring as gathering on a parking lot be the actual event? In the early days I thought of events as something very special and even was very unhappy when the first regular meet and greets showed up.

 

<snip>

 

 

After reading things like the above, I started wondering about the first events that you attended, that they must all be hikes and stuff, and that over time they evolved into eating type meet and greets. I thought that perhaps your experience in the beginning was much different than mine.

 

Of course, it's possible that you didn't log events in the beginning, but the first event that you ever logged on gc. com was in May of 2003, and it was a BBQ. I don't see that people did anything else but meet and eat.

 

My first event was just a couple days after yours, and we met at a restaurant.

 

I'm sure that events after your first one was different, but I didn't bother looking at them.

Link to comment
And that's fine. Instead of hypotheticals, I would like to see this event get submitted.
I'd like to see an event like this listed too. Unfortunately, I am not a docent myself, and the geocaching docents I know who used to hold "unevents" like this have moved out of the area. But they made them unevents to keep the size more manageable, so they probably wouldn't list their hikes as events on geocaching.com anyway. But there are other preserves in the area where the attendance of an event would be lower, just because the preserves are more remote and harder to get to. Or maybe it could be listed as an event, but attendance could be limited to the first n people who signed up. (But that's another discussion.)

 

Hence, the "semi-hypothetical" nature of my example.

 

My best guess, based on what I've seen for interactions with Reviewers, is that a cache like you've described could still get published. Additionally, there's nothing stopping this event from having a listed start time window of 30 minutes to allow folks to show up and not miss out if they don't get there "in time". If this docent is also a cacher, and also the organizer of the event, they'll likely already be there anyway to greet and orient people for 30 minutes on site, and then continue the "tour".
Sure, there's nothing stopping the docents from arriving 30 minutes early. It hasn't been necessary for any of the docent-led hikes I've joined, but there's nothing stopping it.

 

And it's really beside the point. The question is whether this 30-minute period in the parking lot is required before the hike can be listed as an event, and whether this required 30-minute period in the parking lot is effectively the event being listed, rather than the hike itself.

See http://coord.info/GC5A71R for an example.

 

The only thing that needs to be changed for it to be approved today is to change the stated time in second paragraph from "1:40" to "1:30".

 

This event handles the "exclusive" activity, and also creates an event where people who don't go on the activity are welcome to drop in and "socialize".

 

This isn't a "hack" or anything that "gets in the way" of the activity which some might view as the goal of the event itself. This whole problem is solved so easily if hyperventilating can be prevented or treated.

Link to comment

 

See http://coord.info/GC5A71R for an example.

 

The only thing that needs to be changed for it to be approved today is to change the stated time in second paragraph from "1:40" to "1:30".

 

Not true. One also needs to add "end of event: 2:00" and it's this combination which I find painful as it demonstrates clearly what an event means to Groundspeak.

 

I had my reasons why I stressed it is the unfortunate combination of a number of changes (at the given coordinates, minimum required time, start and end time needed).

Link to comment

 

See http://coord.info/GC5A71R for an example.

 

The only thing that needs to be changed for it to be approved today is to change the stated time in second paragraph from "1:40" to "1:30".

 

Not true. One also needs to add "end of event: 2:00" and it's this combination which I find painful as it demonstrates clearly what an event means to Groundspeak.

 

I had my reasons why I stressed it is the unfortunate combination of a number of changes (at the given coordinates, minimum required time, start and end time needed).

Again:

nit-picking-comb.jpg

 

It lists "2:00" as the time that the trip departs. There is no additional burden, no "hack", and no reason for this to be such a conflated mess of whatever it is you're trying to make it be.

 

And really, this doesn't matter one iota--you don't host events anyway, cezanne! If you have an event you'd like to host, where the "activity" is the focus, I'll be happy to write the listing for you, get it set up for Review, work with the Reviewer on your behalf--and all without hyperventilating or trolling--to get it approved.

 

The more you talk about it, the clearer it becomes that this whole problem you have could so easily be overcome if you just let it go. The sky isn't falling, the game isn't ending, dogs and cats aren't living together, and you're not any more worse for the wear.

Link to comment

 

See http://coord.info/GC5A71R for an example.

 

The only thing that needs to be changed for it to be approved today is to change the stated time in second paragraph from "1:40" to "1:30".

 

Not true. One also needs to add "end of event: 2:00" and it's this combination which I find painful as it demonstrates clearly what an event means to Groundspeak.

 

I had my reasons why I stressed it is the unfortunate combination of a number of changes (at the given coordinates, minimum required time, start and end time needed).

 

By my reading there are the following options

 

I. Move thes start time back to 1:20 so you have 1/2 an hour before you have to be at the boat ramp at 1:50.

 

II. Start at 1:40 but indicate that those not going on the float can show up at anytime prior to 2:10. People going on the float attended for 10 minutes. The rest can attend for 1/2 hour and get the required amount of socializing.

 

III. Forget the flash mob and find a place to have pizza an beer after the non-event float. Hold a 30 minute or longer event for pizza and beer, from 5:00 to 5:45 or whatever. Those who went on the float but can't stick around for the event don't need a smiley, because the river float was more fun anyhow. But they are welcome to log a 'Note' any post their pictures from earlier in the day.

 

Conclusion: Geocaching events are for pizza and beer. You can do anything else you like before, after, or even during the event; just make sure that someone is sitting at the restaurant the required time.

Link to comment

It lists "2:00" as the time that the trip departs.

 

So you happen to think that this suffices.

I believe that the reviewers will ask for an explicit line saying end of event: 14:00.

Apparently it cannot be expected from event attendants to read through a longer text and to find out which is the timeframe which takes place at the posted coordinates and which allows for a guaranteed attended log option.

 

If the version you suggested were be publishable, it would make me happy.

 

And really, this doesn't matter one iota--you don't host events anyway, cezanne!

 

It matters a lot as it influences the events that are offered and in particular and even more importantly what newer cacher get to think about what geocaching events are. A single event hosted by whomever (you, me, Mr X) cannot have a really heavy effect - the mass can.

Link to comment

It lists "2:00" as the time that the trip departs.

 

So you happen to think that this suffices.

Yup. And I think a Reviewer would too.

 

I believe that the reviewers will ask for an explicit line saying end of event: 14:00.

I believe that a Reviewer is within their right to request that it were more explicit, sure. But it is not a requirement to be explicit. This raft event starts at 1:40, and ends around 4:00. The portion of the event that covers the 00:30 window would be 1:40-2:10. Therefore, I suggest that the cache could be edited to say "1:30" to the departure of the raft at 2:00, or "1:20" to the required time to be at the ramp for those rafting. Not complicated, and certainly no burden other than being sure that the Reviewer and participants know what to expect (and that it contains the required timeframe for an Event Cache publication).

 

Apparently it cannot be expected from event attendants to read through a longer text and to find out which is the timeframe which takes place at the posted coordinates and which allows for a guaranteed attended log option.

Whaaa? I don't understand what you're saying here. The event I posted states clearly enough what attendees need to know, and what a Reviewer needs to see to publish it according to the guidelines. See also my example on the last page for the "Nature Preserve". Not complicated, not a "hack". Just clearly addressing the listing requirements.

 

If the version you suggested were be publishable, it would make me happy.

I suggest that you give a similar event a try for your first Event Cache hosting!

 

And really, this doesn't matter one iota--you don't host events anyway, cezanne!

 

It matters a lot as it influences the events that are offered and in particular and even more importantly what newer cacher get to think about what geocaching events are. A single event hosted by whomever (you, me, Mr X) cannot have a really heavy effect - the mass can.

I think I've demonstrated sufficiently how you can still have your cake and eat it too. More so than the guidelines, the events one sees in the wild are how they will interpret what can or can't "be done". Therefore I suggest you create the caches you want to see--that goes for any cache type, size, swag, whatever.

Link to comment

I agree, but if it's to be published by a Reviewer and listed as an event through Groundspeak , you have to suck it up a bit.

 

I agree, but right now I still try to understand what is won by the change.

 

If it discourages 5 minute meetings every Saturday morning that seem to exist for the sole purpose of adding an attended log (and a smiley!) so that people can qualify for the attend 50 events in a year challenge, I'd consider that a win.

 

I'm going to assume that GS changed the guideline because they felt there were too many events taking place that were so short in duration that they didn't feel that the event was in the spirit of what they consider a geocaching event to be. So, maybe you don't consider it a perfect solution. Are you going to propose a an alternative solution that could help stop extremely short "events" or are you just going to prolong another thread with why you're exception to yet another aspect of geocaching.

Link to comment

I agree, but if it's to be published by a Reviewer and listed as an event through Groundspeak , you have to suck it up a bit.

 

I agree, but right now I still try to understand what is won by the change.

 

If it discourages 5 minute meetings every Saturday morning that seem to exist for the sole purpose of adding an attended log (and a smiley!) so that people can qualify for the attend 50 events in a year challenge, I'd consider that a win.

 

I'm going to assume that GS changed the guideline because they felt there were too many events taking place that were so short in duration that they didn't feel that the event was in the spirit of what they consider a geocaching event to be. So, maybe you don't consider it a perfect solution. Are you going to propose a an alternative solution that could help stop extremely short "events" or are you just going to prolong another thread with why you're exception to yet another aspect of geocaching.

I'd liken it to when they clarified that Geocaches™ on Geocaching.com® have a container.

Link to comment

Are you going to propose a an alternative solution that could help stop extremely short "events" or are you just going to prolong another thread with why you're exception to yet another aspect of geocaching.

 

I have provided my preferred solution already. I do not mind the lower time limit - I mind it only in combination with "at the posted coordinates" and the requirement for a fixed start and end time. With the old formulation one could allow 5 minutes at the event start to be the period for those to show up at the posted coordinates who only care about the +1 part and then continue with the real activity. Now this artificial period of reduced activity for such events has to last at least 30 minutes. That's a loss in my opinion.

The events that I appreciate take several hours, but not at the posted coordinates.

 

In my area hardly any flash events existed while a lot of events existed which were much more than these artificial 30 minutes events. So I think for my area what has changed within the last 3 years has not been a win situation at all.

 

I think CITO flash mobs did not happen at all. To require that someone is available for a CITO at the posted coordinates (or within sight of them or at any foreseeable point) for a full hour is nonsense in my opinion.

Requiring that a CITO last at leasts one hour is perfectly fine with me, but not in connection with at the posted coordinates.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I agree, but if it's to be published by a Reviewer and listed as an event through Groundspeak , you have to suck it up a bit.

 

I agree, but right now I still try to understand what is won by the change.

 

If it discourages 5 minute meetings every Saturday morning that seem to exist for the sole purpose of adding an attended log (and a smiley!) so that people can qualify for the attend 50 events in a year challenge, I'd consider that a win.

 

I'm going to assume that GS changed the guideline because they felt there were too many events taking place that were so short in duration that they didn't feel that the event was in the spirit of what they consider a geocaching event to be. So, maybe you don't consider it a perfect solution. Are you going to propose a an alternative solution that could help stop extremely short "events" or are you just going to prolong another thread with why you're exception to yet another aspect of geocaching.

So you may end up seeing 30 minute meetings every Saturday morning instead, also for the sole purpose of getting an attended log. I don't see the new guideline changing this behavior.

 

One simple solution would simply be to broaden the interpretation of the current guidelines. Instead of reading:

It takes place at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes.

Have it read: It takes place at the posted coordinates for at least part of the event duration, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes.

Problem solved? I almost think you can interpret the guidelines this way anyways, but had to go back and reread some earlier posts. Post #74 and post #90 from some Reviewers/moderators indicate that there is indeed some need to have the coordinates be part of the event for at least 30 minutes. Although in post #82 Greatland Reviewer seems to backpedal on this for CITOs.

The bare minimum for a CITO is to provide posted coordinates and a start time and end time that are at least 60 minutes apart.

That seems to fly in the face of what is said elsewhere. So now CITOs have a slightly different interpretation of the same guidelineblink.gif? Actually yes, if you look at guidelines for CITOs the wording is indeed different.

CITO Event listings must include a start and end time and last at least 1 hour.
There is no mention of having to be at posted coordinates, but rather that the CITO take place in a "designated location".

 

Wow, it really took me a long while just to parse that out. I really should be getting a new hobby rolleyes.gif. But in all seriousness, if a CITO can be flexible in how the location is incorporated into the event, why can't a regular event? Again, I'm not sure I understand what this specific guideline is getting at. But hey, I'll play by the rules, even if they don't make a lot of sense to me right now.

Link to comment

But in all seriousness, if a CITO can be flexible in how the location is incorporated into the event, why can't a regular event? Again, I'm not sure I understand what this specific guideline is getting at. But hey, I'll play by the rules, even if they don't make a lot of sense to me right now.

It would be silly to require CITO participants to clean up trash only within shouting distance of the posted coordinates. They'd be finished in 10 minutes. A good CITO Event consists of a meeting at the posted coordinates to discuss the cleanup plan, and then the dispersal of the group along trails, around the four corners of a park, along a mile stretch of "adopt-a-highway," etc. Then they might meet up again at the end.

Link to comment
See also my example on the last page for the "Nature Preserve". Not complicated, not a "hack". Just clearly addressing the listing requirements.
Maybe you and I mean something different by the term "hack".

 

Let's say the event organizer would like to list an event like this:

MrsGeocacherDocent and I are volunteer docents at Evergreen Nature Preserve. On Saturday, March 32, we will lead a behind-the-scenes tour of the preserve. There are no geocaches on the preserve, but this is a once-a-year opportunity to visit a preserve that is otherwise closed to the public. We hope you'll join us.

 

We'll meet at the trailhead and depart at 10am sharp. I must lock the gate behind us, so don't be late. We'll return to the trailhead around 2pm.

To me, this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to structure an event. But apparently, it can't be listed unless we add a half-hour period at the posted coordinates.

 

It isn't hard to add a half-hour period at the posted coordinates, and there are several ways to do it. It probably isn't much of a hardship for the event organizer to start the event half an hour earlier, or to finish it half an hour later, or to use the location of the lunch stop (inside the preserve) as the published coordinates of the event, or whatever. It certainly isn't the end of the world, or anything significant enough to be mentioned in the State of the Union address. And once you understand the restriction in the event guidelines, it isn't even particularly complicated.

 

But it's still a workaround for the (IMHO, artificial) restriction in the event guidelines. It's still a workaround, a hack, and a kludge.

Link to comment
A good CITO Event consists of a meeting at the posted coordinates to discuss the cleanup plan, and then the dispersal of the group along trails, around the four corners of a park, along a mile stretch of "adopt-a-highway," etc. Then they might meet up again at the end.
Hmm... So why can't a good non-CITO event consist of meeting at the posted coordinates to discuss the planned hike, then the group hiking along trails around the four corners of the park, then returning to the posted coordinates at the end?
Link to comment

So you may end up seeing 30 minute meetings every Saturday morning instead, also for the sole purpose of getting an attended log. I don't see the new guideline changing this behavior.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. And even then, only the host has to actually stay for the entire 30 minutes: the other people can continue to come and then leave as quickly as they want. (Well, actually, I'm still not seeing that the new rules require that even the host be there the entire 30 minutes.)

 

So does anyone knew if one goal really is to stop quickie events? Trying to prevent lame events is just as stupid as trying to prevent lame hides. I don't think not respecting particular kinds of hides or events is a good reason to have rules against them, even before you consider how impossible it is to come up with reasonable rules about such minutia. If I don't care about the numbers, why should I care if someone gets 50 events in a year by attending lame events?

Link to comment

The primary purpose of an event cache is to socialize with other geocachers.

 

The primary purpose of a CITO event cache is to pick up trash.

 

I agree with this apart from the fact that there are CITOS that take care e.g. of invasive plants, but never mind.

 

The key question becomes why is socializing bent to staying at the same coordinates for a certain period of time?

How do you/Groundspeak define socializing?

 

In my opinion, socializing works best if the people taking part enjoy the setting. So why shouldn't there be an option for everyone?

 

If the primary purpose of events is socializing and going for a walk goes against this primary goal, one might as well forbid eating, drinking and any other activity that is not socializing. Or is eating, drinking parallel to socializing fine while going for a walk is not? If so, why?

 

Do you really think that events that consist of 30 minutes spent at a parking location where everything which is of real interest has to happen outside of the event with respect to the guidelines is a welcoming signal to those who enjoy socializing much more when being physically active than if being forced to stay at the posted coordinates? Such events are a farce in my opinion.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

The primary characteristing of geocaching is using GPS.

 

If you have walk, then you can't find the event using GPS, rather you must use phone or whatever. It's not geocaching anymore.

 

And which should be absolutely obvious for anyone, if you don't live next door, you must assume the possibility of being late, in big cities even half an hour is more than normal, so if even will be on the coordinates only 5 minutes, you would have to aim to be there half an hour before the official start of the even.

 

Now it's more difficult for the owner to farm points by creating multiple events, because the owner must now show more commitment. Some people dislike it, just like D1 rule, so no more matrix filling with the self-baked events.

Link to comment

There is nothing in the Guidelines that says a role can’t be delegated. Events have been held and will continue to be held without the Event Host being present. Life happens...

The reason I don't understand this response is that I don't recall the guidelines listing any responsibilities at all for the host at the time of the event, so I don't know what you're saying needs to be delegated. Heck, since a log book isn't required, he doesn't even need to get a log book there. The guidelines say what can be an event and how to post an event, but nothing I can find says the host has to be there for the event itself.

 

So again I ask: is this a change, so now a host has to be there for some purpose or else delegate to someone else to be there for that purpose? If so, could you specify those responsibilities? I'm not seeing this clearly spelled out, but your responses imply that the host's presence is the actual definition of the event's time period. But what I'm not understanding is what the penalty would be if he left early. Would the event suddenly become invalid so no one can log attended?

 

I don't believe there are any guidelines on the host responsibilities or any change in that area. But here is how I see it.

 

At one time (a year or more ago), events just needed a start time. Then the guidelines (or at least the reviewers guidelines) were changed to require an end time. My understanding of that was to provide a minimum duration which the event would last. So for example, if I said my event runs from 7 until 8 PM, someone arriving in that time should expect the event to be running. If they come after 8 PM it may still be running, it may not.

 

Having (previously) required a start and end time, it makes sense to have a minimum duration. An event of 1 second doesn't make such sense. 30 minutes seems a reasonable minimum.

 

While it not documented, I believe the host should feel the responsibility to ensure SOMEONE is there for the duration listed. So that if anyone else shows up, there is at least one person for them to talk to. When I hosted an event (only once so far), I made sure I was there before the start time and I stayed until after the end time. If I couldn't make it or stay, I would ask someone to do this for me.

 

Or to put it another way- it's not an event if nobody is there. So if I've arranged an event lasting 30 minutes, it seems logical that my responsibility to ensure there is at least one person there for that duration. I would not want someone to come to my event and find there is nobody there. Nor would I want to arrive at an event arranged by someone else and find there was nobody there (but me).

 

Of course if I can't attend my own event, and nobody else attends either, the event listing will still exist, but with no "attended" logs. It becomes a bit of a non event!

 

For any event with regular attendance, this is all theoretical - except maybe the part about being there for the full duration.

Link to comment

 

And which should be absolutely obvious for anyone, if you don't live next door, you must assume the possibility of being late, in big cities even half an hour is more than normal,

 

For me it is absolutely obvious, that being late is rude for persons that are waiting for you. So it is absolutely obvious that if I plan to attend an event at the other side of big city, I get up early enough to transport myself on time.

 

I usually rely on public transport. I know which streets are vulnerable to traffic jams, so I plan accordingly, I use rail transport instead of buses, or simply leave home 15 minuts earlier and thus I can spare 15 minutes looking for some additional cache before event-time.

Link to comment

:blink:

My suggestion is that events can be any duration as long as there is beer and sedentary behaviour.

 

This may be the first post by narcissa with which I can agree. (and that's likely because it is in juxtaposition to the views of cezanne)

 

Maybe. This may be the first post I have ever seen you write. Who keeps track?

Link to comment

:blink:

My suggestion is that events can be any duration as long as there is beer and sedentary behaviour.

 

This may be the first post by narcissa with which I can agree. (and that's likely because it is in juxtaposition to the views of cezanne)

 

Maybe. This may be the first post I have ever seen you write. Who keeps track?

 

f_135508589650c4f8480d137.jpg

Link to comment

The primary characteristing of geocaching is using GPS.

 

If you have walk, then you can't find the event using GPS, rather you must use phone or whatever. It's not geocaching anymore.

If you're arguing that an event has to be stationary and have a particular set time so that people can use a GPS to "find" it, that a bit of a stretch. In the early days of goecaching people want to have a way for geocachers to get together and meet one another. It was sugested that teh cache listings wouuld be a good way to do this. Event were forced into a format that allowed them to be listed as geoecaches. The coordinates allows people to see what events were nearby. The use of the Date Placed field for the day of the event let you see quickly what day the event was on. But you still always had to look the the list to see the time, what activities were planned, whether there was a fee, would there be food, etc. Almost always there was an address as the intent was never to "find" the event using a GPS.

 

In the early days the forccing of eventt in the database has other unintended consequences. There was a Found Log and DNF log. If you attended the event you logged "found it" and this of course resulted in your find count being incremented for events. Many people object. Events were not caches and should count. You shouldn't have Found It and DNF logs but Attended logs, and a Will Attend log to RSVP so the event owner could plan for a certain number of people. Eventually, the website changed so that events took these new logs and the Found Log was no longer available. But TPTB decided to count Attended logs in the find count because by then people were expecting this and some event owners argued that the WIGAS was an incentive for peple to attend events.

 

Now it's more difficult for the owner to farm points by creating multiple events, because the owner must now show more commitment. Some people dislike it, just like D1 rule, so no more matrix filling with the self-baked events.

Event stacking rules are a bit different from the time limit. I suppose it's less likely for someone to have a "flash mob" event in the middle of the potluck event, but the idea was for events to stand on their own. Groundspeak has indicated that they are not interested in stopping the practice in some regions of allowing multiple Attened logs. So while you can't list 5 events when you really have one, nothing prevents an event owner from allowing someone from logging 5 Attended logs for participating in different parts of one event. It appears to me that as far a Groundspeak is concerned, the points don't matter. The policy is more likely trying limit the work load for reviewers in having to review and possilbly publish extraneous events. I suspect that it was so easy to put on a flash mob enent that in some areas it was abused. I'd like to argue that in moderation, flash mob events do facilitate socilizing. But perhaps when the same individuals are holding a flash mob every weekend there was a reason to limit this or at least to ask that some of the time people would plan a longer more traditional events. I can remember when there was not an event every weekend, and when a few times a year there were certain regional events that involved more planning, attracted more people, and involved a range of activities to choose from. These still occur but they now have compete with more pop-up type events.

Link to comment

While it not documented, I believe the host should feel the responsibility to ensure SOMEONE is there for the duration listed. So that if anyone else shows up, there is at least one person for them to talk to. When I hosted an event (only once so far), I made sure I was there before the start time and I stayed until after the end time. If I couldn't make it or stay, I would ask someone to do this for me.

But, of course, you're thinking of just the one kind of event where everyone shows up at one place and socializes without moving. And you're describing what makes a good host, but not anything that could be easily turned into a rule that could be easily justified except through arbitrary criteria of what was desirable.

 

Nor would I want to arrive at an event arranged by someone else and find there was nobody there (but me).

Well, let's think about the simple case that I'm going for where cachers meet, then take a hike together. The minimum duration now means that late comers will still be allowed to claim they attended even if they're too late for the hike, and I'm not sure why that's important to anyone, but I don't have a problem with it. Are you saying that you would be upset if an event was posted that told you that everyone was meeting and taking a walk, but then you showed up late anyway and no one was there? That's like complaining because an event clearly stated that it was at a vegetarian restaurant, but you showed up anyway and couldn't order meat.

 

Of course if I can't attend my own event, and nobody else attends either, the event listing will still exist, but with no "attended" logs. It becomes a bit of a non event!

But the problem case is if you can't attend your own event, and someone else does attend. Still an event? Does it make a difference whether you can't attend or you just don't attend? How would you write the explicit rule? And even if you can write the rule to get this characteristics, what's the point of ruling anything else out just because you personally don't consider it logical?

 

The more we talk about this, the clearer it is that we can't reach any conclusions unless someone actually states the problems that are being solved. Does anyone have any specific examples of problem events that these changes would have made easier to prevent? Without knowing how the previous guidelines failed, I can't really understand how the current guidelines are supposed to fix the problem and whether the fix justifies outlawing other kinds of events that, to me, seem perfectly reasonable.

Link to comment
See also my example on the last page for the "Nature Preserve". Not complicated, not a "hack". Just clearly addressing the listing requirements.
Maybe you and I mean something different by the term "hack".

 

Let's say the event organizer would like to list an event like this:

MrsGeocacherDocent and I are volunteer docents at Evergreen Nature Preserve. On Saturday, March 32, we will lead a behind-the-scenes tour of the preserve. There are no geocaches on the preserve, but this is a once-a-year opportunity to visit a preserve that is otherwise closed to the public. We hope you'll join us.

 

We'll meet at the trailhead and depart at 10am sharp. I must lock the gate behind us, so don't be late. We'll return to the trailhead around 2pm.

To me, this seems like a perfectly reasonable way to structure an event. But apparently, it can't be listed unless we add a half-hour period at the posted coordinates.

 

It isn't hard to add a half-hour period at the posted coordinates, and there are several ways to do it. It probably isn't much of a hardship for the event organizer to start the event half an hour earlier, or to finish it half an hour later, or to use the location of the lunch stop (inside the preserve) as the published coordinates of the event, or whatever. It certainly isn't the end of the world, or anything significant enough to be mentioned in the State of the Union address. And once you understand the restriction in the event guidelines, it isn't even particularly complicated.

 

But it's still a workaround for the (IMHO, artificial) restriction in the event guidelines. It's still a workaround, a hack, and a kludge.

But, I don't think that idea would pass the litmus test of "stand on its own merit" ("If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache.")

 

I can't say that I agree 100% with that interpretation of the guideline, mind you.

 

I just think that the event you've described makes it too easy for the Reviewer to deny publication. If you parse out the timing like I did in my suggestion, I would bet dollars to donuts that it would get published--and would not be any more pain or strain on the owner of the Event Cache listing to meet the guidelines for publication.

Link to comment

Now it's more difficult for the owner to farm points by creating multiple events, because the owner must now show more commitment.

So is the problem being addressed that it's to easy to attend an event? Why pick on events? Although not everyone likes it, we allow caches can be laid out so that it's easy to find a lot of them. The one thing we do do is make sure they can't be too easy by having a saturation rule. Now the saturation rule was established for other reasons, but it just happens to also work well to provide a low bar that power trails have to get over. No one thought of the problem of event saturation until, apparently, now.

 

So maybe a saturation rule is the right approach: how about a rule that says no 2 events within a 24 hour period can be within 0.1 mile of each other? And if that's not good enough, perhaps an additional rule that no two events can overlap temporally (using the new minimums) if they're within, say, 1 mile of each other. Make those rules specific to the type of event -- i.e., allow a social event and a CITO event to be closer or even overlap -- and it seems reasonable. That doesn't make it impossible to farm points, but it limits the number of points that can be reaped to what might be called a power event trail, the same compromise we already use for power cache trails.

 

(Yes, actually, I find it kinda amusing that I seem to be suggesting something that might encourage cezanne to set up a power event trail so that he can legitimately have his hiking event define a specific route even in the face of individual events not being allowed to move. But would that be so bad?)

Link to comment

Now it's more difficult for the owner to farm points by creating multiple events, because the owner must now show more commitment.

So is the problem being addressed that it's to easy to attend an event? Why pick on events? Although not everyone likes it, we allow caches can be laid out so that it's easy to find a lot of them. The one thing we do do is make sure they can't be too easy by having a saturation rule. Now the saturation rule was established for other reasons, but it just happens to also work well to provide a low bar that power trails have to get over. No one thought of the problem of event saturation until, apparently, now.

 

So maybe a saturation rule is the right approach: how about a rule that says no 2 events within a 24 hour period can be within 0.1 mile of each other? And if that's not good enough, perhaps an additional rule that no two events can overlap temporally (using the new minimums) if they're within, say, 1 mile of each other. Make those rules specific to the type of event -- i.e., allow a social event and a CITO event to be closer or even overlap -- and it seems reasonable. That doesn't make it impossible to farm points, but it limits the number of points that can be reaped to what might be called a power event trail, the same compromise we already use for power cache trails.

 

(Yes, actually, I find it kinda amusing that I seem to be suggesting something that might encourage cezanne to set up a power event trail so that he can legitimately have his hiking event define a specific route even in the face of individual events not being allowed to move. But would that be so bad?)

Maybe the best change for Event Caches is that they no longer give you another Smiley for attending. Then there's nothing stopping anyone from having any kind of event they want to, and the guidelines would be quite simple for publication.

 

Let's give this a try, in lieu of having a Lackey give the full run-down of why they decided to make this decision and change:

 

For adding 30-minute duration requirement:

Argument: Makes events more meaningful. Rebuttal: (I'll start!) "Meaning" is variable for different personalities. A 5 minute flash mob might be as meaningful to person A as a 1 hour coffee break is to someone else.

 

Argument: Makes there be a clear time where someone can arrive to still log "Attended" within a set and clear window of time, regardless of the other activities related to the basic site and time requirements. Rebuttal:

 

Argument: Makes people more deliberate and thoughtful about designing their events. Rebuttal: Perhaps. But we can't control "thoughtfulness".

 

Argument: Just as a "Geocache" has a container at the coordinates, Groundspeak is clarifying that an "Event Cache" has a minimum time for "socialization" to occur at the coordinates. Rebuttal:

 

Argument: The new 30-minute minimum requirement is too long a time for me to sit or stand still at an event. Rebuttal: Then don't stand or sit still. Or don't be there for the full 30 minutes. Or see if the cache owner would be fine with you logging an "Attended" if all you do is show up for the "afterparty" or "preparty" of a hike, walk, skate, or whatever.

 

Argument: The new 30-minute requirement takes away the event types I like! Rebuttal: This has happened before in Geocaching.com history with all kinds of cache types and hiding styles. It will all be ok. Plus, unlike other cache types that have been "retired", you can still find a way to publish, have, or attend events on Geocaching.com which contain the things you like about events. One simply needs to change their approach, and be sure to meet the 30 minute requirement for an Event Cache to be at the set coordinates somehow.

 

We can do more of these. But I think the bottom line, based on what I can do on paper, in my head, and from experience, is surmise that the idea is to clarify events in such a way that people are slightly more deliberate for how they plan, create, and decide on a way to host an event. I think it will move people away from overtly bending the rules to have events which are for absolutely nothing more than another smiley. I think it moves events back toward a more deliberate thought process for how to plan something which will allow people to meet, greet, and socialize about geocaching somehow. I think this is a way to redefine what Groundspeak meant when they kept Event Caches, even though they've retired every other non-physical cache type except the learning-based and externally guided Earthcache.

 

Groundspeak could come back tomorrow and say that they are a physical geocache listing service, because that's what the game was started as back in the day. But they won't, because Event Caches are a huge part of the culture of geocaching, and have proven to be a great service to fostering community, community involvement, and herd mentality for how we regulate our community ethics and the guidelines. So, they've found a way to make it fit a little better in the grand scheme of the other Event Cache decisions they've made so that they still fit the mission of the company.

 

No logbook. Ok, that was a mistake IMO, but ok... Starting times. Ok, makes sense to let people know when to be there. Starting and ending times. Ok, makes sense because people should know when they'll have missed their chance to socialize and get another smiley. Duration minimums. Ok, makes sense because some events were created which moved heavily away from the intent of the Event Cache type where people are only using them for a quick smiley, and there is little-to-no incentive to socialize at all. Events must have coordinates where the event is stated to occur. Ok, and people who attend should count on those coordinates being the place they go to because that's where they need to be if they also want to socialize and/or get another smiley.

 

-Can an event still be designed where people only need to be there for a millisecond to log an "Attended"? Yup. But at least the cache owner had to be more deliberate with their design and development of the event.

-Can an event still be designed were people can also take part in something "more meaningful" to some--such as a hike or other activity? Yes! The owner of the event simply needs to be sure that the overall event description and process allows for location and duration guideline requirements to be met.

Link to comment

But, of course, you're thinking of just the one kind of event where everyone shows up at one place and socializes without moving. And you're describing what makes a good host, but not anything that could be easily turned into a rule that could be easily justified except through arbitrary criteria of what was desirable.

 

Yes, that is what an event is. Well they can move as much as they want, but you should find it by going to the posted coordinates during the specified time.

 

And to me it is logical that if the guidelines say the event must last 30 minutes, then the owner should see that it does. Normally that would be by attending myself. Or if I can't attend, asking someone else to cover for me. I'm creating an Event, and the guidelines say it must last 30 minutes, and I tick the box that says I am agreeing to the guidelines.

 

 

Well, let's think about the simple case that I'm going for where cachers meet, then take a hike together. The minimum duration now means that late comers will still be allowed to claim they attended even if they're too late for the hike, and I'm not sure why that's important to anyone, but I don't have a problem with it. Are you saying that you would be upset if an event was posted that told you that everyone was meeting and taking a walk, but then you showed up late anyway and no one was there? That's like complaining because an event clearly stated that it was at a vegetarian restaurant, but you showed up anyway and couldn't order meat.

 

I'm not entirely clear on this example. If the event was advertised as from 7 until 7:30, and I arrived at 7:15 and everyone was gone, then yes I would be disappointed. If the event listing said it was from "7:00 until 7:30, but we are leaving for a walk at 7:05 so nobody will be here after 7:05", then if I couldn't get there by 7:05, I wouldn't go. But I'm not sure the second example would be published.

 

 

But the problem case is if you can't attend your own event, and someone else does attend. Still an event? Does it make a difference whether you can't attend or you just don't attend? How would you write the explicit rule? And even if you can write the rule to get this characteristics, what's the point of ruling anything else out just because you personally don't consider it logical?

 

I'm not creating a rule. I'm simply saying that to me it is logical that if the guidelines say the event must last 30 minutes, then the owner should see that it does. Yes if anyone arrives at the event location during the event time, they attended, even if they are the only one there.

 

I suppose by definition, the time and place exists. So if I create an event at coordinate X from 7 until 730, then anyone who arrives at that place and time attended, even if nobody else was there. So I guess you are correct that as the guidelines are written, all the owner needs to do is put a location and 30 minute or more time period in the description. They don't need to attend or make sure anyone else attends.

 

I could do that even if I had no intention to attend the event. The guidelines don't require it. I could set up event caches in different countries which I have no intent to travel to. But it would be odd to do so.

Link to comment

It appears to me that as far a Groundspeak is concerned, the points don't matter.

After some more thought, I'm going to take back this comment.

 

Instead I think the points matter a lot to Groundspeak. Find counts, souvenirs, and features like statistics provide "game mechanics" that for many geocachers enhance the experience of geocaching. Groundspeak is well aware of this and uses it to promote the game and to attract new geocachera as well as retain those aready playing. But they also know that if the points or souvenirs appear too easy to get then they have less impact and may even alienate some geocachers. Even when Groundspeak has full control, as in when they award souvenirs, there have been misteps - as in 31 souvenirs for August in 2013. That arracted many people who attempted to find a cache every day that month. But it alienated others who saw people hide caches for the sole purpose of making this easier than it would have been for people trying a streak in a month without the souvenirs; or who weren't going for a streak and found it annoying to get a souvenir for finding caches on the days they were going to cache anyhow.

 

Events may be seen a bonus for Groundspeak marketers. When cachers socialize and discuss caches or trade travel bugs, that increases interest. But getting points for events that consist of nothing other than a group of cachers getting together for a few seconds or for doing things they would be doing anyway, may alienate some from attending events at all, and may reduce the ability of a WIGAS point (or a souvenir) for attending an event to attract more "business'.

 

In most cases it would be in Groundspeak's interest to have more caches and more events (and more opportunity to score a WIGAS). But markerting decisions have to be made to ensure that the value of these mechanisms to Groundspeak is not diluted.

Link to comment

I'm thinking it just makes it easier for reviewers to deny events that seem "iffy"...like flash mobs in a Walmart parking lot and such. Imposing a 30 minute minimum means reviewers can justify saying 'no' to an event because having a group of twenty congregating in a Walmart parking lot for 30 minutes violates the 'no loitering' policies...or might trigger a response from security in some fashion.

I agree.

I believe the time minimum might have been placed due to problems with permission.

We had encounters with security twice in busy parking lots (not a walmart) during flash mob events.

We don't do that type anymore...

Link to comment

It appears to me that as far a Groundspeak is concerned, the points don't matter.

After some more thought, I'm going to take back this comment.

 

Instead I think the points matter a lot to Groundspeak. Find counts, souvenirs, and features like statistics provide "game mechanics" that for many geocachers enhance the experience of geocaching. Groundspeak is well aware of this and uses it to promote the game and to attract new geocachera as well as retain those aready playing. But they also know that if the points or souvenirs appear too easy to get then they have less impact and may even alienate some geocachers. Even when Groundspeak has full control, as in when they award souvenirs, there have been misteps - as in 31 souvenirs for August in 2013. That arracted many people who attempted to find a cache every day that month. But it alienated others who saw people hide caches for the sole purpose of making this easier than it would have been for people trying a streak in a month without the souvenirs; or who weren't going for a streak and found it annoying to get a souvenir for finding caches on the days they were going to cache anyhow.

 

Events may be seen a bonus for Groundspeak marketers. When cachers socialize and discuss caches or trade travel bugs, that increases interest. But getting points for events that consist of nothing other than a group of cachers getting together for a few seconds or for doing things they would be doing anyway, may alienate some from attending events at all, and may reduce the ability of a WIGAS point (or a souvenir) for attending an event to attract more "business'.

 

In most cases it would be in Groundspeak's interest to have more caches and more events (and more opportunity to score a WIGAS). But markerting decisions have to be made to ensure that the value of these mechanisms to Groundspeak is not diluted.

I think you're onto something.

 

Events are/were a way to have an announcement that like-minded (geocachers) people were gathering to do something--hike, camp, eat, drink, whatever.

 

Events are a way to get another smiley too. As soon as you assign that value to the event, you're welcoming a whole set of regulations which give parameters or limitations on what may constitute another smiley--because that event now has value outside of the simple gathering of geocachers.

 

Take away the Smiley, get back whatever gathering style you want. Keep the added value of the Event Cache via the +1 Smiley, and you welcome regulation to both limit and clarify what constitutes another Smiley.

 

Look at it this way: Geocaches could have been anything. Instead they were designed to be containers with a logbook. That is the same limitation which saw the retirement of Virtuals, Webcams, and Locationless cache types--you could not create an equitable legitimacy of the "Found It" once the game expanded outside of the small ranks of OGs (Yeah, I said it. Original Gangsters, homie!) :laughing: Once we add in the expanded personalities, variable ethics, and those who realized that stretching the rules was fun, Groundspeak had to respond with clarification and realignment of mission-driven corporate goals. This meant regulation of the valued item of another smiley--the Found It log.

 

So, we play here, we abide. If this change, which some apparently do, or will view as an insurmountable barrier to Event enjoyment, is such a burden, Groundspeak can certainly take away the extra valuation of that Smiley (Attended Log), and allow us to simply use the Event Cache type as an event announcement, not as another way to also earn a +1 Smiley for one's account profile.

Link to comment
If you have walk, then you can't find the event using GPS, rather you must use phone or whatever. It's not geocaching anymore.
The event will be on the patio between Starbucks and Peet's Coffee at N dd° mm.mmm W ddd° mm.mmm. We'll be there from 9am to 10am.

 

The event will start at the preserve entrance at N dd° mm.mmm W ddd° mm.mmm. We'll depart at 10am sharp and return around 2pm.

 

Both use GPS coordinates, both will last at least 30 minutes, and both allow geocachers to socialize with other geocachers.

 

But one can't be listed because there isn't a designated half-hour period at the posted coordinates.

Link to comment
If you have walk, then you can't find the event using GPS, rather you must use phone or whatever. It's not geocaching anymore.
The event will be on the patio between Starbucks and Peet's Coffee at N dd° mm.mmm W ddd° mm.mmm. We'll be there from 9am to 10am.

 

The event will start at the preserve entrance at N dd° mm.mmm W ddd° mm.mmm. We'll depart at 10am sharp and return around 2pm.

 

Both use GPS coordinates, both will last at least 30 minutes, and both allow geocachers to socialize with other geocachers.

 

But one can't be listed because there isn't a designated half-hour period at the posted coordinates.

But the latter will be listed if you add language that states that there is a 30-minute window at the listed coordinates for people to arrive, get oriented, or whatever. It just needs to include that language somehow, and the event is no worse for the wear--you still get that great hike opportunity with other geocachers, and it gets published on Geocaching.com!

 

There simply needs to be a requirement met that the event is about gathering geocachers, not about taking people on a hike into a nature preserve. The hike could happen without being listed on Geocaching.com, but if you want it listed on Geocaching.com you need to account for the valuation of the Smiley and need to leave a window at the set coordinates for at least the minumum required time.

 

...Because that's what Groundspeak has determined constitutes an Event Cache on Geocaching.com.

 

Set of coordinates/location clarity. Online listing. Timing clarity. Duration requirement. =Event Cache on Geocaching.com

 

Set of coordinates/location. Container. Logbook. Online listing. =Geocache on Geocaching.com

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment
The primary purpose of an event cache is to socialize with other geocachers.
Sit-in-a-diner, bar (what have you) events, many cluster with their pals and (at least we've experienced) there's very little socializing going on at all, except within their small cliques.

We often hear and see that as the biggest complaint with newbies at events, "Nobody wanted to talk to us".

CJ and I often give a newbie a geocoin and welcome them.

- I stalk who they are on the event page. :)

Can't tell you how many times we get mail saying we were the only ones who talked to them the entire time.

 

All the way back in post 60 (got hidden by nits I guess...) I asked about a couple-month experiment in Canada for Organized Group Hunts.

Seemed to go over well.

- So much so, that a Lackey even stated, “Geocaching.com has decided that we will likely proceed with this type of event, but as yet no decisions about when and the details about how are also undecided. We’ll keep you updated as information becomes available."

What happened ? It's been two years now.

 

I understand the purpose of events, but it seems odd (to me) that we've experienced more folks actually socializing with each other when we're out and about on small group cache hikes than hanging out in a diner, or under a pavilion.

Link to comment
The primary purpose of an event cache is to socialize with other geocachers.
Sit-in-a-diner, bar (what have you) events, many cluster with their pals and (at least we've experienced) there's very little socializing going on at all, except within their small cliques.

We often hear and see that as the biggest complaint with newbies at events, "Nobody wanted to talk to us".

CJ and I often give a newbie a geocoin and welcome them.

- I stalk who they are on the event page. :)

Can't tell you how many times we get mail saying we were the only ones who talked to them the entire time.

 

All the way back in post 60 (got hidden by nits I guess...) I asked about a couple-month experiment in Canada for Organized Group Hunts.

Seemed to go over well.

- So much so, that a Lackey even stated, “Geocaching.com has decided that we will likely proceed with this type of event, but as yet no decisions about when and the details about how are also undecided. We’ll keep you updated as information becomes available."

What happened ? It's been two years now.

 

I understand the purpose of events, but it seems odd (to me) that we've experienced more folks actually socializing with each other when we're out and about on small group cache hikes than hanging out in a diner, or under a pavilion.

Really, really good points. (and well-presented without hyperbole!)

 

My experiences as an attendee at most "sit in a restaurant" or "meet at a pavillion for a BBQ" events can be summarized as a let-down. Generally I have been on the outside looking in, mostly because I haven't made quality connections with many other cachers with how much I've moved around. That's changed quite a bit for me now that I'm in a smaller community (actual and caching-related) here in Alaska, and I can bet on friendly, welcoming, and interested people at events here.

 

But still, the vast majority of the reasons I wouldn't attend too many events in Oregon or Minnesota when I lived there is because of the perceived clique-iness of the events. Rarely would I get acknowledged or welcomed, and generally the organizers had their entourage at the ready to distract them from introducing and doing the job I'd imagine a host doing.

 

So, I make efforts to do the opposite at events I attend, and meet and greet and welcome, and include--because I've been "that guy" who is the wallflower.

 

I do think that the activity-based events which include things like a bike or hike or whatever help with the socialization aspect because you're whittling down the outliers of like-minded people. If I like to kayak, and there's a kayak event, I'll go. And I'll meet other kayakers...who also geocache. Social science research also proves that physical activity can help break down barriers to interaction and "socialization".

 

So, there's strong support for the idea of including those types of events where a hike or bike or whatever happens in conjunction with the minimum time requirement. This might mean an undue burden for some people to "sit around for 30 minutes", but they also don't have to organize the event if that's their attitude.

 

It's SO EASY to have the 30 minutes built into an event it's just mind-boggling to hear arguments against it. Those 30 minutes address so many needs and personalities of this game, I don't see why some can't just accept that it's the yin to their yang of wanting to get out and be "active" at an event too.

 

Different strokes for different folks, man. It's not like people who enjoy the pub events can't still have their events. And it's not like, without some attitude adjustment and additional language, events where a hike or other whatever happens can't be published either. This all just takes a moment to stop the hyperventilation and address the desire to do it one way along with the need to meet the time and location guidelines.

Link to comment
But, I don't think that idea would pass the litmus test of "stand on its own merit" ("If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache.")
That's why my original semi-hypothetical example specified that the preserve hike was separate and distinct from the standard semi-monthly docent-led hikes that were open to and advertised to the public.
Link to comment
But, I don't think that idea would pass the litmus test of "stand on its own merit" ("If an event is already organized outside of the geocaching community or it will happen without a Geocaching.com listing, it is likely not an Event Cache.")
That's why my original semi-hypothetical example specified that the preserve hike was separate and distinct from the standard semi-monthly docent-led hikes that were open to and advertised to the public.

And that is the crux of the discussion you'd have to have with your Reviewer (and possibly appeal to Groundspeak?) to find out if it is sufficient.

 

But adding in the 30 minutes part is still likely going to be more of a sticking point than the "stands alone" issue. This is where the way I wrote that hypothetical listing helps make it clearly about the hike into the preserve, while also allowing for the required window. Again, see how that rafting trip could have been edited to make it meet the guidelines today.

Link to comment
But adding in the 30 minutes part is still likely going to be more of a sticking point
Which is exactly the point. Why should a designated half-hour period at the posted coordinates be such a sticking point for getting an event listed?

 

Yes, I know there are workarounds. I'm pretty sure everyone contributing to this thread knows there are workarounds. But why are these workarounds needed?

Link to comment
But adding in the 30 minutes part is still likely going to be more of a sticking point
Which is exactly the point. Why should a designated half-hour period at the posted coordinates be such a sticking point for getting an event listed?

 

Yes, I know there are workarounds. I'm pretty sure everyone contributing to this thread knows there are workarounds. But why are these workarounds needed?

See above for best guesses and arguments for it. I really don't know beyond my own best guess.

 

I think that it is simply to put some boundaries on the valuated thing that is an Event Cache. I think it is to help define the "spirit" of an event on Geocaching.com, where it more clearly sets lines between what is an event and what is an Event Cache. I also think that there might be a hope that it makes event designers be more thoughtful and deliberate with the obligations that come along with being an Event Cache host on Geocaching.com.

Link to comment

Of late in this thread, the discussion has turned to examining the intent of the guideline change, and various "what if?" hypotheticals. As a reminder, "event stacking" and "event being at the posted coordinates" and "event must have a start and end time" are not new concepts. The sole changes are about minimum duration. Nothing's banned, it's just that your flash mob needs to last a half hour, not five minutes.

 

I'd like to remind everyone that we've already had a clear, simple explanation from Geocaching HQ of the reason for the change. It really is this simple:

 

As the guidelines mention, "Event Caches facilitate the social aspect of geocaching." When an event is only 5 minutes long (or less!), it's unlikely much socializing can take place.

 

The 30-minute minimum timeframe aims to ensure that a minimum amount of time is allowed to form meaningful connections.

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...