Groundspeaks lays down some event time rules...

[+tozainamboku]

Here they simple imply that hiking, paddle, or any activity that doesn't stay in one place isn't socializing.

I don't get that from them at all.

They have said that geocaching events are to promote socializing and be geocaching-related. That's not a negative statement about anything not allowed as a geocaching event. I think it's ridiculous to think that Groundspeak somehow now feels that moving events are not socializing or geocaching-related. The key point is that those are moving events, and the reason they are disallowed is because it's been abused to create group caching events, which they do not want to allow - even though there have been legitimate hiking and other moving-activity geocaching events. But because they can't control what actually happens during an event, only what the host intends and announces in the listing with the presumption that they are being honest, they tightened the rules about what constitutes an official event. That means, in dissuading event listings that are abuses of freedom, it may also adversely affect legitimate events that weren't abusing said freedom.

But it's a cost they apparently were willing to accept.

I don't recall that Groundspeak has shared this rationale. They may have, when they changed the guideline that events had to take place at the posted coordinated and have a start and end time. For this latest change they gave a reason that it takes 1/2 hour to make meaningful connections. (I'm not covinced, maybe the can find a Psych professor at the University of Washington to back up this claim) It seems that perhaps they should say the 1/2 limit was to dissuade the use of short events to work around the guideline that an Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search.

 

Did this change as well? I recall that it used have 'solely' or 'primarily' in that sentence. In fact at looking at some events I attened, I found a hiking event that clearly says there were caches on the trail that people could find. But the cache page also indicated that we would stop at the top for drinks and snacks and to watch the sunset. That was apparently enough to get the cache published.

 

The world doesn't end. But when guidelines restrict or treats unfairly what a substantial number of geocachers view as a legitimate cache or event

...and yet those activities can still be done - just not required in order to receive your coveted find smiley.

That's the only issue here. Nothing is being restricted, only what constitutes an event listing, which awards Attendees with a Smiley.

All those acitivities can still be done.

This doesn't stop that fact that for a long time hiking and other moving events have been published and that even after the change that events took place at a fixed location they could still be published by saying that for the purpose of logging online you simply had to show up at the start at the posted time and weren't required to go on the hike. Can they still be published if you stand around for 1/2 hour at the start? Seems so.

 

Hey, I'm going with some friends on the E.T. trail. We're going stop at the Lil Ale'inn for breakfast from 7?30 to 8:00. Guess that's still a listable event.

 

Perhaps someone from Grounspeak is listening, or perhaps they get annoyed by someone using certain acronyms or speculating on the real reason for the change . For sure there will always be people who simply accept Groundspeak's decision and feel its their job to object to the critics.

As I've said many times, I'm all for discussion and improvement, but there's a line between that and constant complaining with no effort to seek a solution. Key: constant. Everyone has the right to post whatever they want within the forum guidelines. Everyone has an opinion. But threads become like this one when people simply cannot accept any resolution, nor present any of their own beyond their stationary position. And continue to argue it. It's frustrating, and this is one of the reasons that fewer staff ever visit the forums.

Ultimately, it does a disservice to those who do want to respectably find solutions and move forward while recognizing that Groundspeak is the authority and makes the final decisions.

Actually if you were the bigger man and let cezanne get in the last word, this thread would drop off the front page in a hurry.

 

It's not simply bowing and accepting whatever decisions TPTB make. It's about being reasonable and rational and humble given the context that we are customers using a listing service managed and controlled by a private entity. It is in their best interest to listen to us, but it's not in the community's best interest to cause them to have no desire to listen.

These long threads are long because not everyone agrees with every decision Grounspeak makes. Sure they're a private company and can decide when not to listen. I don't believe it is in their interest to tell us to shut up. (Bring back virtuals )

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

 

If an event host wanted to do that, then yes. If the reviewer felt that it was an event sufficient and worthy of publishing as a Geocaching event, then yes.

 

That's exactly the point: If the reviewers take into account what they regard as worthy, then we do not need rules that forbid flash mobs etc

The rules seem to be an attempt to provide the reviewers with something where it is as clear as possible whether the event is publishable or not regardless of whether an event (or other cache) is worthy to be published.

 

 

So it's up to the reviewers to deem an event worthy of being listed? What if the doesn't like to kayak - no kayak events? Hates pizza and beer - no meet and greets at the pizza shop? Will never happen.

 

I doubt you will find ANY reviewers to go along with that. They like pretty defined limits, so they don't get arguments like "Cacher X had their event published in Austria but I want to do the same thing in Germany and you won't let me."

[cezanne]

 

 

If an event host wanted to do that, then yes. If the reviewer felt that it was an event sufficient and worthy of publishing as a Geocaching event, then yes.

 

That's exactly the point: If the reviewers take into account what they regard as worthy, then we do not need rules that forbid flash mobs etc

The rules seem to be an attempt to provide the reviewers with something where it is as clear as possible whether the event is publishable or not regardless of whether an event (or other cache) is worthy to be published.

 

 

So it's up to the reviewers to deem an event worthy of being listed? What if the doesn't like to kayak - no kayak events? Hates pizza and beer - no meet and greets at the pizza shop? Will never happen.

 

I doubt you will find ANY reviewers to go along with that. They like pretty defined limits, so they don't get arguments like "Cacher X had their event published in Austria but I want to do the same thing in Germany and you won't let me."

 

It was not me who came up with the worthy formulation. I just replied. I also think that it would not work, but if it works in one context, then also in another one.

[+narcissa]

Actually if you were the bigger man and let cezanne get in the last word, this thread would drop off the front page in a hurry.

 

:laughing:

 

Only to be replaced by another thread with cezanne talking about hiking.

[+niraD]

I think we should also suggest that a smiley as "reward" for attending an event be removed.

I support this and have supported it already many years ago but I guess it won't happen ever.

I think it's an unlikely change, given the strong expectation many have of getting a smiley for attending an event, and the effect simply changing the accounting would have on so many people's milestones and other statistics.

 

But it could be done. I think the key would be to grandfather old "Attended" logs as granting smileys, but to have all future "Attended" logs not grant smileys.

 

Of course, then you'd have people split an account and relog everything under the new account, and they'd wonder why the original group account gets smileys for events, but the new account doesn't.

 

 

It's not a "workaround". It's what you do if you want to meet the guidelines and have the event include activities which might take you away from the listed coordinates.

Of course it's a workaround.

 

The event you want to list can't be listed because it doesn't include a half-hour period at a specific location. So you add a half-hour period at a specific location, for the sole purpose of meeting the listing requirements.

 

That's a workaround.

 

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

- Inigo Montoya

Edited February 25, 2015 by niraD

[+thebruce0]

I don't recall that Groundspeak has shared this rationale. They may have, when they changed the guideline that events had to take place at the posted coordinated and have a start and end time. For this latest change they gave a reason that it takes 1/2 hour to make meaningful connections. (I'm not covinced, maybe the can find a Psych professor at the University of Washington to back up this claim)

As that statement is subjective, I did not take it as a rule that by extension "meaningful connections must be made". The spirit of that statement was that, you know, people come and mingle and be social in one location for a minimum period of time that would be best conducive towards that goal. It's not far fetched. They changed their opinion and felt that 15 minute events were too short, and for various reasons they wanted to set the minimum time to 30 minutes. Whether it's to reduce over saturation, or event stacking, or lack of what they feel is sufficient social time... whatever the reason, after many given, they feel that 30 minutes is what they deem sufficient. Doesn't matter whether or not they have some scientific research to back up their statement, and frankly if it gets to the point that the community demands scientific backing for any rule they decide to set in the world of Geocaching.com, I wouldn't blame them if they throw their hands up and shut down. c'mon

 

It seems that perhaps they should say the 1/2 limit was to dissuade the use of short events to work around the guideline that an Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search.

Read between the lines, if those exact words haven't been spoken. The reasons they've given clearly imply that.

Maybe not as clear to some people.

 

looking at some events I attened, I found a hiking event that clearly says there were caches on the trail that people could find. But the cache page also indicated that we would stop at the top for drinks and snacks and to watch the sunset. That was apparently enough to get the cache published.

If the reviewer felt that the wording for the event was sufficient that it wasn't consider an event for the sake of finding geocaches, and that the event itself was about geocaching, then yep. Published.

 

> All those acitivities can still be done.

 

This doesn't stop that fact that for a long time hiking and other moving events have been published and that even after the change that events took place at a fixed location they could still be published by saying that for the purpose of logging online you simply had to show up at the start at the posted time and weren't required to go on the hike. Can they still be published if you stand around for 1/2 hour at the start? Seems so.

If the reviewer feels that the event creator's listing is a worthwhile event in the context of geocaching to be published, and it's within the minimum requirements, then yep, it would be published.

 

Hey, I'm going with some friends on the E.T. trail. We're going stop at the Lil Ale'inn for breakfast from 7?30 to 8:00. Guess that's still a listable event.

Yep, it certainly would be.

And BTW, I stayed there last year while doing the ET trail. If I were in the area, I would very much attend, if not host, an event there.

 

Actually if you were the bigger man and let cezanne get in the last word, this thread would drop off the front page in a hurry.

 

... I missed out on the first oodles of pages of this thread. I joked about it. I pass on loads of other threads. There is a recurring theme in threads wherein I participate - not requiring my participation to become a thread such as this. That theme is when one or few people don't get a simple concept, and one or few people completely get it, but neither are willing to give up on either trying to get the point across or requiring their view be understood - until someone leaves.

Cezanne repeatedly expresses a concern, repeatedly asks for reasoning or clarification, but does not accept it. And repeatedly requests. And repeatedly complains. The answers are are not satisfactory, but he (she?) will not walk away.

These threads are not competitions. This is not some 'must have the last word' stubborn thing. This is about trying to explain, trying to reason, and being blocked at every turn.

 

These long threads are long because not everyone agrees with every decision Grounspeak makes. Sure they're a private company and can decide when not to listen. I don't believe it is in their interest to tell us to shut up. (Bring back virtuals )

 

I agreed. As I just said, I have no problem with voicing concerns, discussing with the intent to find resolution, making suggestions and shooting for improvement. I have problems with unreasonable people who love to argue in circles, creating threads like this.

[+thebruce0]

It's not a "workaround". It's what you do if you want to meet the guidelines and have the event include activities which might take you away from the listed coordinates.

Of course it's a workaround.

 

The event you want to list can't be listed because it doesn't include a half-hour period at a specific location. So you add a half-hour period at a specific location, for the sole purpose of meeting the listing requirements.

Actually, "The activity you want to list as an Event can't be listed because it doesn't include a half-hour period at a specific location."

[cezanne]

Here they simple imply that hiking, paddle, or any activity that doesn't stay in one place isn't socializing.

I don't get that from them at all.

They have said that geocaching events are to promote socializing and be geocaching-related. That's not a negative statement about anything not allowed as a geocaching event.

 

But keystone's explanation that CITOs are allowed to move because their goal is to pick up litter and events are not allowed to move because their goal is to socialize goes into this direction, at least in the way I understand it.

 

Groundspeak did not provide us with any statement about moving events. Rock chalk just wrote something about 30 minutes vs. 5 minutes.

 

I think it's ridiculous to think that Groundspeak somehow now feels that moving events are not socializing or geocaching-related.

 

Probably as speculating as assuming the contrary. We do not have any input. We just have Keystone's statement which I understand that for him apparently socializing is bound on to a stationary activity.

The same message was sent by a number of participants here.

 

...and yet those activities can still be done - just not required in order to receive your coveted find smiley.

That's the only issue here. Nothing is being restricted, only what constitutes an event listing, which awards Attendees with a Smiley.

All those acitivities can still be done.

 

The smiley is not the issue as using the workaround people will end up with a smiley.

The issue is that those who do not want to use the workaround have no chance to address the target audience.

So either use the workaround or have no event at all.

For a me a choice between pest and cholera.

 

As I've said many times, I'm all for discussion and improvement, but there's a line between that and constant complaining with no effort to seek a solution.

 

As I said I never expected solutions or changes from this thread, but reasons and explanations. Not workaround, speculations by cachers who Groundspeak might have chosen to formulate the guidelines in this way. They can come up with whatever rules they want and they do not need to explain them. Still I'd appreciate to receive an explanation of what's behind the event guideline in its current form and I regard it as legitimate to question whether all aspects are well thought up (like the approach how to get rid of event stacking which is faulty in my opinion).

 

And continue to argue it. It's frustrating, and this is one of the reasons that fewer staff ever visit the forums.

Ultimately, it does a disservice to those who do want to respectably find solutions and move forward while recognizing that Groundspeak is the authority and makes the final decisions.

 

I guess we need different threads for those seeking solutions and for those seeking answers. I never seeked for a solution here and I never questioned Groundspeak's authority on their site.

 

 

We all agree that under the new guidelines you can still have a hiking activity. We all agree that by adding a 1/2 hour activity that does stay in one place you can get the event listed. It seems legitimate to ask Groundspeak to review the impact of all the guidelines on events that previously got published, that people enjoyed, and that facilitated socialization in many cases better that the traditional pizza and beer event.

 

This! Yes! (the first part, I'd like to hear cezanne agree)

Now if cezanne can echo that sincerely and mean the bold part, and act accordingly in the forum, then I, for one, would be satisfied.

 

I never questioned the above. I argued about that the hike is not part of the actual event and not about that it cannot take place. I did not even ask Groundspeak to review something.

I asked questions and wrote that I do not understand some aspects and that did not change through this thread.

 

 

But first note: Groundspeak has already experimented with one solution to the issue of moving events - the temporary beta testing of group caching events. If those ever get implemented, then I'm confident in saying that moving events like hikes and rafting trips will be publishable, likely with some minor wording stipulations.

 

Maybe, I rather think that group hunts are something different in nature, but who knows what will happen. As a pessimist I do not have much hopes that it will be something that pleases me. The "wonderful" idea of the pi day souvenirs also shows already its impact - I rather should not look at any event pages at all that would help to keep my frustration level lower.

 

I wonder how sincere the statement that events are for socializing are meant when some events start right off with what they are mainly about: Offering the chance to collect a new souvenir and that's all.

Edited February 25, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

 

As I said I never expected solutions or changes from this thread, but reasons and explanations. Not workaround, speculations by cachers who Groundspeak might have chosen to formulate the guidelines in this way. They can come up with whatever rules they want and they do not need to explain them. Still I'd appreciate to receive an explanation of what's behind the event guideline in its current form and I regard it as legitimate to question whether all aspects are well thought up (like the approach how to get rid of event stacking which is faulty in my opinion).

 

niraD, here's the person to direct that Inigo Montoya movie quote at...

 

A "workaround" is a way to work within the provided construct to get a desired result. Cezanne, you view the 30-minute minimum requirement for duration to be "the event", when, in fact, that is simply only tied to the location indicated from the listed coordinates. "The event" (or Event Cache) does not need to END when that window closes. The event can continue. You simply need to demonstrate that people can come to the listed coordinates for a minimum of 30 minutes for part of the overall event. Your event (and Event Cache) can still be a 5-hour hike, but you need to leave that window open at the listed coordinates for the required amount of time.

 

Your desired result, as you've stated AD NAUSEUM is to have a hike (or whatever) be the focus of the Event Cache. To do so, you need to meet the guidelines, which simply state that you must be able to make it clear during review that your Event Cache has the minimum window at the listed coordinates. We've provided AD NAUSEUM ways that you can make that happen--and it DOES NOT detract from the pleasure you seek from a hike, bike, raft, paddle, or whatever.

 

Simply including language that demonstrates that you're meeting the guidelines is not taking away your freedom, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

Edited February 25, 2015 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

 

A "workaround" is a way to work within the provided construct to get a desired result.

 

My desired result is two-fold but different from the one you write about: Result number 1 is understanding why the rules are exactly as they are and result number 2 would be some sign that hiking is an activity at events that gets the same appreciation as organizing a raffle or having a bbq.

 

The workaround does neither provide explanations nor appreciation and does not make the users of the workaround feel that what they are doing is welcome and not just tolerated as part of a gray area.

 

Your event (and Event Cache) can still be a 5-hour hike, but you need to leave that window open at the listed coordinates for the required amount of time.

 

Our local reviewers would not publish this in this manner and would require that the end time is changed or that someone is available at the posted coordinates during the 5 hours.

 

Simply including language that demonstrates that you're meeting the guidelines is not taking away your freedom, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

 

What takes away my happiness away is how the guidelines affect the events that are organized in my area. It never has been about how I could write up an event page as I'm completely unsuitable as event host. Writing an event page is the trivial part of an event.

Edited February 25, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

 

A "workaround" is a way to work within the provided construct to get a desired result.

 

My desired result is two-fold but different from the one you write about: Result number 1 is understanding why the rules are exactly as they are and result number 2 would be some sign that hiking is an activity at events that gets the same appreciation as organizing a raffle or having a bbq.

 

The workaround does not neither provide explanations nor appreciation and does not make the users of the workaround feel that what they are doing is welcome and not just tolerated as part of a gray area.

How is getting your cache approved under the guidelines not "welcome"? This continues to prove that you just want to troll this topic.

 

Your event (and Event Cache) can still be a 5-hour hike, but you need to leave that window open at the listed coordinates for the required amount of time.

 

Our local reviewers would not publish this in this manner and would require that the end time is changed or that someone is available at the posted coordinates during the 5 hours.

Prove it. This guideline change is about a week old, isn't it? You haven't hosted a single event, and don't intend to (from what it sounds like). So, where are these events that your Reviewer(s) are not publishing?

 

Simply including language that demonstrates that you're meeting the guidelines is not taking away your freedom, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

 

What takes away my happiness away is how the guidelines affect the events that are organized in my area. It never has been about how I could write up an event page as I'm completely unsuitable as event host. Writing an event page is the trivial part of an event.

Then it shouldn't be a problem. You CAN get your hike event published, and you CAN have it be the focus of the event.

 

From what you've said in the first quote, you clearly haven't remembered that you said "If this cache could be published, I'd be happy" (paraphrased). You don't remember that we've provided ways to make the hike event work by including simple language that lets the Reviewer know that you've met the 30-minute minimum at the listed coordinates.

 

The events "organized in (your) area" aren't affected at all, beyond simply including clarity that the guidelines are met. Not hard, as I've demonstrated. Not hard, as Mods and Reviewers who have chimed in have stated.

[+thebruce0]

But keystone's explanation that CITOs are allowed to move because their goal is to pick up litter and events are not allowed to move because their goal is to socialize goes into this direction, at least in the way I understand it.

A CITO's purpose is to clean up an area. An Event's purpose is to have a single location at which an event takes place for a minimum period of time that is geocaching-related. Echo echo echo

Doesn't matter whether or not someone is required to be there, how Groundspeak wants CITO listings to be structured is not how Groundspeak wants Event listings to be structured.

 

Groundspeak did not provide us with any statement about moving events. Rock chalk just wrote something about 30 minutes vs. 5 minutes.

In this thread? Or ever in the forum?

Moving events were an issue long ago and have also been discussed to death. I've seen all over the place reasoning as to why moving events are not allowed. I no longer have a desire to go searching for specific wording in comments posted by official GS staff just to satisfy a request here which will likely still be insufficient.

 

Probably as speculating as assuming the contrary. We do not have any input. We just have Keystone's statement which I understand that for him apparently socializing is bound on to a stationary activity.

Then you do not understand his language, or you've only learned to read and take a literal meaning with zero sense that there is no possible way that Keystone could believe that only stationary activity is socializing. Come. On.

 

> All those acitivities can still be done.

The smiley is not the issue as using the workaround people will end up with a smiley.

Yes, for the listed event during the posted times at the posted coordinates, not for the additional activity that is not part of the event.

 

The issue is that those who do not want to use the workaround have no chance to address the target audience.

Bummer. Groundspeak doesn't want to allow an event to be merely the type of activity you want it to be. For reasons - see the rest of the thread.

 

So either use the workaround or have no event at all.

Yup.

That's a trade-off I'm confident Groundspeak consciously accepted in making this decision.

 

As I've said many times, I'm all for discussion and improvement, but there's a line between that and constant complaining with no effort to seek a solution.

 

As I said I never expected solutions or changes from this thread, but reasons and explanations. Not workaround, speculations by cachers who Groundspeak might have chosen to formulate the guidelines in this way. They can come up with whatever rules they want and they do not need to explain them. Still I'd appreciate to receive an explanation of what's behind the event guideline in its current form and I regard it as legitimate to question whether all aspects are well thought up (like the approach how to get rid of event stacking which is faulty in my opinion).

 

And continue to argue it. It's frustrating, and this is one of the reasons that fewer staff ever visit the forums.

Ultimately, it does a disservice to those who do want to respectably find solutions and move forward while recognizing that Groundspeak is the authority and makes the final decisions.

 

I guess we need different threads for those seeking solutions and for those seeking answers. I never seeked for a solution here and I never questioned Groundspeak's authority on their site.

 

 

I argued about that the hike is not part of the actual event and not about that it cannot take place. I did not even ask Groundspeak to review something.

I asked questions and wrote that I do not understand some aspects and that did not change through this thread.

And we responded, because you were hurling claims that Groundspeak doesn't consider hiking to be socializing or that they were banning types of events, or that you felt degraded because the activity you wanted to list couldn't be listed, etc etc. So we clarified for you.

The Event is a set time period in one location for a minimum amount of time specifically to be geocaching-related, and not for the mere intent of finding geocaches, which still allows for endless activities to occur before, during and/or after the listed time and location.

 

 

I wonder how sincere the statement that events are for socializing are meant when some events start right off with what they are mainly about: Offering the chance to collect a new souvenir and that's all.

*sigh*

Consider this:

Try posting an empty event purely for the sake of attendees so they can get the souvenir. Don't plan anything. State that on the cache page. Come. Leave. Attend. Souvenir.

See if it gets published.

 

Seriously, you reach for things trying to prove your point, but you don't think about the bigger picture. Reviewers make judgement calls - they have minimum rules that listings must adhere to, and they have guidelines by which they can judge. If you feel the judgement is in error, you can appeal. The reviewer can judge, based on the event owner's listing content, whether the event is sufficiently up to the standard of what Groundspeak deems acceptable for a Geocaching.com Event Listing. An event that is overtly not about socializing likely will not be publishable, even if it satisfies the rules. An event owner will either A] WANT to create a great event that abides by the rules and fulfills the spirit of the guidelines, or B] will try to push the lower limit of what is acceptable at which point the reviewer has judged that it is sufficient to be published, or not. And in the case of B if it's found that the host has purposefully misrepresented the event, they may well and rightly so be black listed for tighter judgement for cache publishing in the future.

 

Grasp the spirit of what Groundspeak is doing here, and grasp the limitations of what they can enforce in order to provide the best possible experience for as many people as possible - even if it means that some desireable things will not be possible because a few people have abused the freedoms they used to be granted.

 

With that, I'm going to be "the bigger man" (because I have no qualms about that) and leave this thread, because frankly now it is in my opinion ridiculously circular and pointless. And I'm becoming a swirling puddle of angst. Goodbye. And good luck cezanne with your ongoing crusade to understand (even if you don't like) simple Groundspeak concepts.

 

*continues to watch Ethics of Finding thread, already abandoned*

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Actually if you were the bigger man and let cezanne get in the last word, this thread would drop off the front page in a hurry.

 

:laughing:

 

Only to be replaced by another thread with cezanne talking about hiking.

 

Maybe we we escalated the discussion to name calling a mod would come in and put this thread to rest to give us time to cool off.

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

I don't recall that Groundspeak has shared this rationale. They may have, when they changed the guideline that events had to take place at the posted coordinated and have a start and end time. For this latest change they gave a reason that it takes 1/2 hour to make meaningful connections. (I'm not covinced, maybe the can find a Psych professor at the University of Washington to back up this claim)

As that statement is subjective, I did not take it as a rule that by extension "meaningful connections must be made". The spirit of that statement was that, you know, people come and mingle and be social in one location for a minimum period of time that would be best conducive towards that goal. It's not far fetched. They changed their opinion and felt that 15 minute events were too short, and for various reasons they wanted to set the minimum time to 30 minutes. Whether it's to reduce over saturation, or event stacking, or lack of what they feel is sufficient social time... whatever the reason, after many given, they feel that 30 minutes is what they deem sufficient. Doesn't matter whether or not they have some scientific research to back up their statement, and frankly if it gets to the point that the community demands scientific backing for any rule they decide to set in the world of Geocaching.com, I wouldn't blame them if they throw their hands up and shut down. c'mon

I don't think the statement was subjective. But OK, I'll accept, if someone at Groundspeak is of the opinion that 1/2 hour is more conducive to forming meaningful relationships than 10 minutes, they can pick 1/2 hour as a minimum time you have to have in one place.

 

I certainly am entitled to my opinion that hiking with people for 2 hours is more conducive to making meaningful connections than 1/2 hour trying to have a conversation in a noisy restaurant. I happen to also hold the opinion that a 10 minute encounter may be a better way to start a relationship than sitting for 1/2 an hour - as shown by the popularity of speed dating and similar events.

 

It seems that perhaps they should say the 1/2 limit was to dissuade the use of short events to work around the guideline that an Event Cache should not be set up for the purpose of gathering geocachers for a geocache search.

Read between the lines, if those exact words haven't been spoken. The reasons they've given clearly imply that.

Maybe not as clear to some people.

Those words have not been spoken by any Groundspeak representatives in this thread. I think it may be something I proposed as a better reason than the one given.

 

looking at some events I attened, I found a hiking event that clearly says there were caches on the trail that people could find. But the cache page also indicated that we would stop at the top for drinks and snacks and to watch the sunset. That was apparently enough to get the cache published.

If the reviewer felt that the wording for the event was sufficient that it wasn't consider an event for the sake of finding geocaches, and that the event itself was about geocaching, then yep. Published.

Good to know that reviewers never make mistakes.

 

Hey, I'm going with some friends on the E.T. trail. We're going stop at the Lil Ale'inn for breakfast from 7?30 to 8:00. Guess that's still a listable event.

Yep, it certainly would be.

And BTW, I stayed there last year while doing the ET trail. If I were in the area, I would very much attend, if not host, an event there.

You make it seem that if you spend 1/2 hour standing in one place twiddling your thumbs it doesn't matter what other activities you did, the event wasn't about organize a group geocache hunt - it was about standing around twiddling thumbs (i.e. socializinge). Is 1/2 hour magic? Couldn't 10 minutes do the same thing?

 

It could be that since you need a minimum time 1/2 hour is as good as anything else. I suspect that we're so used to 528 feet for cache separaration (we only get a thread on that occasionally now), that we're supposed to be happy was nay arbitrary number.

 

I've actually enjoyed the flash mob events I attended. And I personally didn't have a problem when they got tacked on to the start of a hike or other activity. From my point of view the change appears to be made to please people who were bothered by others being able to log attended and incrementing their find count. My guess is that many of them will still be upset because there will still be events they don't think are worthy.

 

... I missed out on the first oodles of pages of this thread. I joked about it. I pass on loads of other threads. There is a recurring theme in threads wherein I participate - not requiring my participation to become a thread such as this. That theme is when one or few people don't get a simple concept, and one or few people completely get it, but neither are willing to give up on either trying to get the point across or requiring their view be understood - until someone leaves.

Cezanne repeatedly expresses a concern, repeatedly asks for reasoning or clarification, but does not accept it. And repeatedly requests. And repeatedly complains. The answers are are not satisfactory, but he (she?) will not walk away.

These threads are not competitions. This is not some 'must have the last word' stubborn thing. This is about trying to explain, trying to reason, and being blocked at every turn.

 

cezanne has a bit of reputation for having his own view of geocaching. There have been many threads where I can recall trying to explain why Waymarking could be used to create the kind of experience he misses with virtuals being grandfather (or due to someone logging a multi without visiting all the stages). I've pretty much learned that when someone has a certain Weltanschauung (or maybe Geoanshaung?) that what is simple to us makes no sense to them.

Edited February 25, 2015 by tozainamboku

[cezanne]

An Event's purpose is to have a single location at which an event takes place for a minimum period of time that is geocaching-related.

 

Based on that formulation I think that it is correct to claim that hiking is a less appreciated event activity than eating.

 

In this thread? Or ever in the forum?

Moving events were an issue long ago and have also been discussed to death. I've seen all over the place reasoning as to why moving events are not allowed.

 

I have not seen a convincing explanation from someone from Groundspeak.

 

Then you do not understand his language, or you've only learned to read and take a literal meaning with zero sense that there is no possible way that Keystone could believe that only stationary activity is socializing. Come. On.

 

Maybe I do not understand his language. That's why I asked a polite and sincere question quite early in this thread and got no reply. I did not use the find term and I tried my best to be respectful.

I also asked others why they think that meeting at e.g. a restaurant is better way to socialize than going for a hike (as has been claimed by some people here).

 

 

The issue is that those who do not want to use the workaround have no chance to address the target audience.

Bummer. Groundspeak doesn't want to allow an event to be merely the type of activity you want it to be. For reasons - see the rest of the thread.

 

I did not say anything about that. What I meant was that the dilemma for those who want to have an event hike and do not want to use the workaround is that they cannot reach the cachers they want to reach. It's easy to live without smilies - it's about the way to reach the target audience (in the sense of cachers who interested into hiking events).

 

My preferred solution were events without smilies but much more freedom.

 

 

And continue to argue it. It's frustrating, and this is one of the reasons that fewer staff ever visit the forums.

 

Actually never a lot of staff visited the forums. reviewers like Keystone are not staff.

 

Ultimately, it does a disservice to those who do want to respectably find solutions and move forward while recognizing that Groundspeak is the authority and makes the final decisions.

 

Probably there should be separate threads/forums for discussions and for issues and requests directed to Groundspeak.

 

Try posting an empty event purely for the sake of attendees so they can get the souvenir. Don't plan anything. State that on the cache page. Come. Leave. Attend. Souvenir.

See if it gets published.

 

I guess it would - it just needs to take 30 minutes. I just encountered about 30 minutes ago an event listing whose contents is essentially that souvenir hunters can collect the souvenir

and that it is an efficient way to start the weekend and get collected the first souvenir as early as possible (because the event takes place from midnight to 31.40 minutes after midnight). With the old guidelines it would have lasted until 3.14 minutes after midnight - not that much of a difference - the contents is the same - empty).

 

Seriously, you reach for things trying to prove your point, but you don't think about the bigger picture. Reviewers make judgement calls - they have minimum rules that listings must adhere to, and they have guidelines by which they can judge. If you feel the judgement is in error, you can appeal.

 

I did not feel that there has been an error on the reviewer's side. I just makes me sad how much geocaching has devolved. Also I did not try to prove anything with what I wrote about the souvenir event.

It was just me being more and more disillusioned into what geocaching events have turned from the enjoyable things they once have been. Yes, it's not the end of the world, but it makes me very sad. In a few years 95% of the cachers still around will not know any longer what great events once have existed and will believe that all events are like the ones that become more and more common.

Edited February 25, 2015 by cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

[+narcissa]

 

Oh, that's a nice picture. Is Eeyore waiting for the other hikers to arrive?

[Mr.Yuck]

OMG. I'm dying here. You people do know they only did this to stop The Dirtbag Geocaching Society from stacking events, right?

 

Just kidding, I'm sure they didn't. But *I* thought it was funny.

[+Baad Daata]

Is there a difference between a rule and a guideline? I had a reviewer deny a cito/container exchange event at 7A before an event beginning at 8A when the restarant opens. It provided and opportunity for folks to mull around and visit before loading two plates full of food, from the buffet, and sit with people they already know. Our reviewer called that "stacking". I called it something else.

[Keystone]

That's a classic example of event stacking. The container exchange flowing right into the meal at the same location is all one continuous event. And, geocachers are expected to pick up after themselves, so stacking a CITO on top of a regular event doesn't work.

 

The "stacking" guideline has been in place for a long time. The recent changes were solely to establish minimum durations for events, CITO events and Mega Events.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Keystone

[+wimseyguy]

Am I the only one here that's puzzled that Cezanne has nearly 4 times as many posts on the topic in this thread than total events attended?

 

As to the 'would this get published' query, only your reviewer can answer that question for you. What the other forum posters think won't get it published nor keep it from happening.

[cezanne]

Am I the only one here that's puzzled that Cezanne has nearly 4 times as many posts on the topic in this thread than total events attended?

 

I do not find that amazing at all - the way I got socialized with respect to geocaching made me think of a geocache event as something special (e.g. Christmas takes place also only once per year). In the early years we had meetings about every 1-2 months that were organized outside of geocaching.com (possible back then as the community was small) and about 1-2 events per year in the whole province and those then were special. We did not think that those meetings in a restaurant were worthy of being gc.com events. Apart from my feeling that events should be something special (and very, very different from lame 1/1 guardrail traditionals) another aspect that certainly played a role is that I prefer events with at most 30 people where one does feel lost and does not end up in very crowded rooms where you can hardly move. In the early years intimate events were possible as the number of cachers has been reasonably small while meanwhile it has exploded.

 

BTW:

Until last year even local regular event that took place about 6 times per year was handled by a single listing per year where one logged only one attend per year regardless of how often one attended the event. It was one of the last areas that did not use a new listing for each meeting. I think that this was one of the last remainings of the early times.

 

Cezanne

[+Roman!]

Am I the only one here that's puzzled that Cezanne has nearly 4 times as many posts on the topic in this thread than total events attended?

 

As to the 'would this get published' query, only your reviewer can answer that question for you. What the other forum posters think won't get it published nor keep it from happening.

 

And none hosted, these new guidelines are sure cramping her style.

[+gpsblake]

Groundspeak making things way too difficult... If Groundspeak wants to end event stacking, here's how to do it in one sentence.

 

1) Only one event per day within a 20 mil radius with at least an #### time limit.

 

End of guideline. end of arguments, no exceptions (including mega events) for any reason. Reviewers not allowed to override this guideline.

Edited March 1, 2015 by gpsblake

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Groundspeak making things way too difficult... If Groundspeak wants to end event stacking, here's how to do it in one sentence.

 

1) Only one event per day within a 20 mil radius with at least an #### time limit.

 

End of guideline. end of arguments, no exceptions (including mega events) for any reason. Reviewers not allowed to override this guideline.

 

Here is another way...

 

1) An event attended log will not add to the geocachers find count.

 

 

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

End of guideline. end of arguments, no exceptions (including mega events) for any reason. Reviewers not allowed to override this guideline.

 

That will never happen.

[+dprovan]

Am I the only one here that's puzzled that Cezanne has nearly 4 times as many posts on the topic in this thread than total events attended?

This observation does nothing to refute cezanne's position.

 

As to the 'would this get published' query, only your reviewer can answer that question for you. What the other forum posters think won't get it published nor keep it from happening.

The question here is what standards are reviewers being told to uphold, so even if his reviewer said that the event would be approved, that might just mean that his reviewer hasn't gotten the word yet about how these decisions are supposed to be made. Me, I'd prefer the guidelines make that clear, but they don't.

 

It's true that other forum posters' opinions don't really answer the questions, but no one qualified to answer is contributing.

 

1) Only one event per day within a 20 mil radius with at least an #### time limit.

I don't see any reason for events to be a special case. I'd say the standard 0.1 mile saturation guideline is fine, with some hold period, say 1 day, so another event could be staged within the 0.1 mile limit the next day. 0.1 mile combined with the 30 minute minimum event duration seems reasonable. I wouldn't understand why someone would want to string out a bunch of 30 minute events 0.1 mile apart, but it doesn't strike me as any more inherently bad than someone stringing traditional caches 0.1 mile apart, something we've already decided to accept.

 

But let me point out that I've never seen event stacking, so I don't really know what the problem is. What I've just presented is what, in my opinion, is the equivalent for events of the existing saturation rule. To consider a more strict standard -- such as making the saturation distance 20 miles instead of 0.1 -- then I'd want to have a better idea what problem is being solved.

[+K13]

That's a classic example of event stacking. The container exchange flowing right into the meal at the same location is all one continuous event. And, geocachers are expected to pick up after themselves, so stacking a CITO on top of a regular event doesn't work.

 

The "stacking" guideline has been in place for a long time. The recent changes were solely to establish minimum durations for events, CITO events and Mega Events.

 

I was looking for caches to find during an upcoming trip. At the location of a Traditional and Virtual, I see Two Pi Day events. One 9 to 930 and a CITO from 930 to 10.

 

I didn't think that would fly, as on my side of the state, friends were not allowed to have a lunch gathering within 2 hours of a CITO last year.

[+niraD]

Groundspeak making things way too difficult... If Groundspeak wants to end event stacking, here's how to do it in one sentence.

 

1) Only one event per day within a 20 mil radius with at least an #### time limit.

 

End of guideline. end of arguments, no exceptions (including mega events) for any reason. Reviewers not allowed to override this guideline.

So my event to honor my friend's 10th anniversary of starting geocaching gets denied because someone organized a CITO on the other side of the bay?

 

Yeah, that rule guideline would certainly end the arguments...

[+Uncle Alaska]

That's a classic example of event stacking. The container exchange flowing right into the meal at the same location is all one continuous event. And, geocachers are expected to pick up after themselves, so stacking a CITO on top of a regular event doesn't work.

 

The "stacking" guideline has been in place for a long time. The recent changes were solely to establish minimum durations for events, CITO events and Mega Events.

 

I was looking for caches to find during an upcoming trip. At the location of a Traditional and Virtual, I see Two Pi Day events. One 9 to 930 and a CITO from 930 to 10.

 

I didn't think that would fly, as on my side of the state, friends were not allowed to have a lunch gathering within 2 hours of a CITO last year.

 

I didn't know a CITO could be half an hour long?

[+tozainamboku]

Groundspeak making things way too difficult... If Groundspeak wants to end event stacking, here's how to do it in one sentence.

 

1) Only one event per day within a 20 mil radius with at least an #### time limit.

 

End of guideline. end of arguments, no exceptions (including mega events) for any reason. Reviewers not allowed to override this guideline.

 

There always a chance two geocachers are scheduling two unrelated events the same day. You could handle this the way physical cache proximity is handled and say who ever submitted theirs first wins.

 

But I'm not sure that Groundspeak is all that opposed to having multiple related events, particularly in association with mega events. The problem they had was that stacking was being abused. TPTB feel that it's better to have a single listing for activities that take place in the same general location and at roughly the same time (or consecutively in time). People can get around the stacking rule by moving the stacked event a little farther away and adding a little time. In most cases this workaround is easy. If you can't move the activity a some distance and have a half-hour break then you probably have stacked events.

 

People seem to think the stacking rule has something to do with the number of attended logs someone might be getting in a day. While stacked events may have been listed because the event planners were trying to use the "Woohoo!" effect of getting another smiley to encourage people to attend, I suspect the issue Groundspeak had was with multiple events are held in one general area over consecutive time periods, not how many smileys someone could get.

 

Here is another way...

 

1) An event attended log will not add to the geocachers find count.

This may have the result of fewer people listing stacked events, but since it probably isn't Groundspeak's rationale for the guideline, it doesn't really apply. And even if attending events didn't increment the 'find' count, there would probably still be a count somewhere for the number of events attended and challenge caches for attending multiple events in a day, so someone is likely going to still want to stack events.

[+dprovan]

People seem to think the stacking rule has something to do with the number of attended logs someone might be getting in a day. While stacked events may have been listed because the event planners were trying to use the "Woohoo!" effect of getting another smiley to encourage people to attend, I suspect the issue Groundspeak had was with multiple events are held in one general area over consecutive time periods, not how many smileys someone could get.

Could you explain this? I assumed it was all about too many smilies, so if it isn't about smilies, why else GS would give a rat's paw why multiple events are held in one general area over consecutive time periods? I can't imagine any inherent problem with such a string of events, so the only answer I can imagine involves some concept of the purity of Events being sullied.

[+thebruce0]

It's true that other forum posters' opinions don't really answer the questions, but no one qualified to answer is contributing.

Oh but they have.

Many of us understand and are satisfied. Some of us are not satisfied, and continually repeat the questions, causing tptb who do have first hand input to have no desire in engaging with the inevitable repetitive back and forth that those of us who do understand have chosen to exhaustingly take on. Until we give up at least.

 

I was looking for caches to find during an upcoming trip. At the location of a Traditional and Virtual, I see Two Pi Day events. One 9 to 930 and a CITO from 930 to 10.

 

I didn't think that would fly, as on my side of the state, friends were not allowed to have a lunch gathering within 2 hours of a CITO last year.

Yeah, and this is one big reason why they instated the 'no precendent' rule. It's pretty much guaranteed you could find an infraction to most any guideline taken at face value, somewhere out there - but whether it's due to mistake, negligence, special exception, or intentional ignorance by the reviewer (no question they should not be a reviewer), we don't know the reviewer's reasoning.

 

So, you could take on a crusade and locate every guideline infraction in the database forcing higher review of every individual situation, or just shrug and move along, knowing and recognizing that at least there are guidelines by which reviewers are supposed to make their judgements and decisions (and with that knowledge report only what you sincerely believe to be abuse of the system, rather than every infraction).

Like it or hate it, that's the system in place right now.

 

I'm not sure that Groundspeak is all that opposed to having multiple related events, particularly in association with mega events. The problem they had was that stacking was being abused.

Right, it's abuse of freedoms that hurt everyone else who don't abuse it. It hurts when there's no feasible way to distinguish an action between legitimate and abuse. If cutting back on abuse is more important to tptb, then the ones that lose out in that case are the 'Good People'.

[+CanadianRockies]

I think I'll host an event where people will take turns reading aloud the posts from this entire thread. I don't think the event will have any trouble meeting the new duration requirement.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure that Groundspeak is all that opposed to having multiple related events, particularly in association with mega events. The problem they had was that stacking was being abused.

Right, it's abuse of freedoms that hurt everyone else who don't abuse it. It hurts when there's no feasible way to distinguish an action between legitimate and abuse. If cutting back on abuse is more important to tptb, then the ones that lose out in that case are the 'Good People'.

And I have indicated that I would find examples of abuse of flash mob events as a better rationale for a 30 minute limit that the claim that you can socialize or form "meaningful relationships" in less time. Nobody has been forthcoming except for those who seem annoyed by people getting a find count for a flash mob rather then some real abuse.

 

I don't have too much problem with the stacking rule because I remember seeing abuse before it was put into effect. I recall we had an annual beach party event. One year there was an event to show up early to help claim the spot on the beach for the event. Then there was the event. Then the was the cookout. Then the camp fire. And finally a CITO to clean up. This was clearly one event and it as also cleat that some people would only be there for parts of it. Many came early, then went off geocaching, and came back for dinner. My guess is that in another state, the cache owner would have one listing and tell people to log it once for each part, and that may even pass muster with Groundspeak.

 

The issue of course is even then you had different people hosting the different parts of the event. Groundspeak needed a guideline that gave the reviewers some discretion in deciding if these were one event or if they could be listed separately. I even recall that HQ modified the guideline a bit when they though reviewers were being too strict.