Jump to content

Hiking Events


HikingSeal

Recommended Posts

 

Maybe, but our local reviewer insisted on that change and did not publish the ice skating event in its original form and the entrance fee was the main (but not only reason provided). The same happened for other similar events (not about ice skating).

 

I would appeal the ruling as I'm finding multiple events, published after the guidelines went into effect, where there is a (possible) charge associated with attending the events, not doing the activity associated with the event.

 

It's a bit difficult to judge for most local cachers as they have no idea which type of events are published around the world. They know the local situation and if they are told by a reviewer that there has been this cnange, they will believe it, suck it up once and then typically will learn from it for the next years and refrain from using gc.com again for such endeavours.

 

I need to admit that even I though I have a much better picture of what happens in other regions have never come to an understanding which type of entrance fees are ok and which are not. I only know that the organizers of the big giga event and some mega events have been forced to provide a manner for attendants to sign the log book and log the event as attended without paying participation fees required to cover the costs of the event. In that case I think community protests caused Groundspeak to come up with this requirement - so there rather those cachers who are greedy for icons and smileys are to be blamed and Groundspeak only indirectly.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

However, the time period of "stationary" Event Cache socialization must last 30 minutes, at minimum, at the listed coordinates:

 

I did not question that. Only that the event cache socialization stops when the listed coordinates are left and now is turned

into a private socialization and not any longer part of the event cache.

So what?

 

The Event Cache listing is still what announced the event to the geocachers who want to attend, and the hike can still be undertaken by those who want to hike, and they can still socialize on the hike.

 

What's the problem again?

Link to comment

Come to my dead horse beating event.

 

Meet us at the trailhead at 9am where we'll be handing out beating implements and answering questions.

 

If you're not interested in beating dead horses, it is still a good chance to see some old faces, meet some new ones, and find out what dead horse beating is all about.

 

It's also going to be the launch of our new BEATING A DEAD HORSE geocoin. We'll be selling these beauties for $10 each.

 

We'll leave the trailhead at 9:30am.

 

For those interested in beating dead horses, it will be about a 30 minute walk on a flat gravel path to the pasture where the dead horses will be ready for us to beat.

FOR. THE. WIN.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

 

It's a bit difficult to judge for most local cachers as they have no idea which type of events are published around the world. They know the local situation and if they are told by a reviewer that there has been this cnange, they will believe it, suck it up once and then typically will learn from it for the next years and refrain from using gc.com again for such endeavours.

Look at events around the world to see. It's not that hard. So appeal to find out what is really the issue. I fail to see how the event at the Vienna RathausPlatz would get denied, SOLELY on the fact that there is an entrance fee. It's a public use facility, NOT a private business so commercial aspects shouldn't apply in that case. Fees for private businesses would be considered commercial and therefore not allowed, as I understand it, although it's my guess that some have slipped through the cracks in that regard too.

Link to comment

However, the time period of "stationary" Event Cache socialization must last 30 minutes, at minimum, at the listed coordinates:

 

I did not question that. Only that the event cache socialization stops when the listed coordinates are left and now is turned

into a private socialization and not any longer part of the event cache.

So what?

 

The Event Cache listing is still what announced the event to the geocachers who want to attend, and the hike can still be undertaken by those who want to hike, and they can still socialize on the hike.

 

What's the problem again?

 

I explained it many times and I think too many times up to the point where people made fun about it. It's not a from a pragmatic point of view. You either understand or don't understand it.

I think explaining it once again will not change the situation and however I try to explain it it will only cause some to laugh about me and others to criticize my chosen language. I just do not know how I should explain to you while it feels quite differently both for many hosts and many attendant of an event whether the main activity was part of the event or wasn't. For you this does apparently play no role and that explains why you do not have an issue with the situation.

Link to comment
Glad we've finally reached a consensus on this issue - sometimes, a hike is just a hike, and doesn't need to be a geocaching event.
And not all geocaching events need to be Geocaching.com Event Caches™.

 

Around here, we use the term "unevent" to refer to geocaching events that we can't (or don't want to) list on Geocaching.com as Event Caches™.

Link to comment

However, the time period of "stationary" Event Cache socialization must last 30 minutes, at minimum, at the listed coordinates:

 

I did not question that. Only that the event cache socialization stops when the listed coordinates are left and now is turned

into a private socialization and not any longer part of the event cache.

So what?

 

The Event Cache listing is still what announced the event to the geocachers who want to attend, and the hike can still be undertaken by those who want to hike, and they can still socialize on the hike.

 

What's the problem again?

 

I explained it many times and I think too many times up to the point where people made fun about it. It's not a from a pragmatic point of view. You either understand or don't understand it.

I think explaining it once again will not change the situation and however I try to explain it it will only cause some to laugh about me and others to criticize my chosen language. I just do not know how I should explain to you while it feels quite differently both for many hosts and many attendant of an event whether the main activity was part of the event or wasn't. For you this does apparently play no role and that explains why you do not have an issue with the situation.

The only answer I can recall had to do with D/T ratings, and that people would not attend if they saw that an Event Cache is listed so that it can gather people for a hike and was rated a 1/1.

 

I replied that it is interesting that they dismiss the event right out because of the rating, and not for the content of the Event Cache activities, goals, or description. I voiced my confusion in regards to these people not reading the description, or even looking at a title to see if they want to attend.

 

It's what happens at the event, and even AFTER the event, that matters, right? So why are these people stopping their publication of events? Why are others not attending the events? It sounds to me like sour grapes because they have been asked to rate Events appropriately, and less so that the Event Cache listing indicates (or will have to indicate) that there is a centralized meeting point which must have a minimum of 30-minutes before they depart on their moving portion of the gathering.

 

Once all leave the coordinates (area), the event ends. Unless someone is staying back at the coordinates for the stated start/end time window...

 

If I can see other geocacher acquaintances from where my GPSr reads "0 meters" for an event, I have never seen that be an issue for how close you must be for listing publication. If the area where people should know to gather is central to other activities or notable locations (skating, concessions, tables to sit, benches to wait, trailheads, restrooms, dressing areas, parking lots, bus stops, train stations, petting zoos, skate rentals, clown farm, e.g.), then you add them with additional waypoints so that people can find you.

 

This works especially well for the skating event you describe, cezanne!

 

As for a hike, it can still be the focus, and can still be described in the listing. There will still be an event, and an active activity to take part in if one chooses. WHAT. IS. THE. PROBLEM? :anicute:

Link to comment

The only answer I can recall had to do with D/T ratings, and that people would not attend if they saw that an Event Cache is listed so that it can gather people for a hike and was rated a 1/1.

 

That was a small side remark I made because the rating is a good indicator what is seen as event cache by Groundspeak.

 

It's what happens at the event, and even AFTER the event, that matters, right?

 

No, for what constitutes the event cache it neither matters for me what happens before nor after. That's exactly one of my main points. If the activities have to happen after or before the gc.com event, then it is way easier and less frustrating to organize such events without using Groundspeak at all.

 

It's like for an exam it only matters what the student manages to answer between the start and the end time of the exam.

Of course, for his competence it also might play a role what he comes up with later, but not for the exam. Yes, I know event caches are not exams. Please do not tell me that. I used the example only to explain a partial aspect of my reasoning. Like the rating example, this is yet another partial aspect. Taken all together they obtain the whole picture.

 

I also told you that the policy of Groundspeak makes me feel that they tolerate the mention of hikes, bike rides etc on event listings, but have no particular interest that such activities are parts of events and not even that they are listed as additional activities. The way they argue makes me feel that the most important two aspects for them are making the job for the reviewers easier and having simple rules when to log an attended log.

 

 

Once all leave the coordinates (area), the event ends. Unless someone is staying back at the coordinates for the stated start/end time window...

 

Exactly, and that's what I have an issue with.

 

 

This works especially well for the skating event you describe, cezanne!

 

I already explained why it does not. The idea of a skating event is not yet another smilie distribution event for those for whom there are plenty of events to choose from.

If it were allowed to have the event inside the skating area, the situation would considerably improve. However that was denied due to the entrance fee.

 

 

 

As for a hike, it can still be the focus, and can still be described in the listing. There will still be an event, and an active activity to take part in if one chooses. WHAT. IS. THE. PROBLEM? :anicute:

 

It seems to make much more sense to me to organize events which cannot be Groundspeak events due to the guidelines outside of gc.com than organizing an event on gc.com that complies with the guidelines and has nothing to do with the planned event and just use the event listing to announce the activity of the planned event as something that happens outside of the gc.com event.

 

If everything what such events are really about has to happen outside of the geocaching.com event (it can be part of the listing, yes I know), why bother to use gc.com at all?

The way Groundspeak proceeds makes me believe that they would not miss such events at all on their site. Maybe I'm wrong. This is just a feeling.

 

I also mentioned that the new rules cause a problem for those who feel uncomfortable with short event caches and never would want to host an event cache which lasts only 1 hour or even less. It is hard however to fit a 4 hour picnic with games and all this stuff into a 5 hours hike. Disclaimer: What I write is not in the slightest meant to discredit short events. I need some way to describe the issues that are caused by the stance that the hike and other activities are not part of the event cache.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
As for a hike, it can still be the focus, and can still be described in the listing. There will still be an event, and an active activity to take part in if one chooses. WHAT. IS. THE. PROBLEM? :anicute:
Imagine that DocentCouple want to lead their geocaching friends on a guided tour through a preserve that is normally closed to the public.

 

On the local geocaching forums, they announce the hike, the departure time from the trailhead, the estimated return time, etc. They post the same information on a couple local Facebook groups.

 

On geocaching.com, they create an Event Cache™ listing with the same information, but the volunteer reviewer won't publish it unless they add a half-hour meet-n-greet that starts half an hour before the departure time and ends at the departure time. They shrug their shoulders, archive the Event Cache™ listing, and leave the hike as an unevent.

 

Everyone's happy... except for the people who rely on Event Cache™ listings to find out about gatherings of local geocachers, because they won't see the local forum announcements, the Facebook posts, etc.

Link to comment

 

If everything what such events are really about has to happen outside of the geocaching.com event (it can be part of the listing, yes I know), why bother to use gc.com at all?

 

Well...

You don't host events, so this discussion is moot.

 

Why do you bother to worry so much when you aren't hosting events?

 

We've shown you proof that you can still do the things you like to do via Event Cache listings on Geocaching.com. Now you just need to help those who do host events in your region to know what is still possible under the guidelines.

 

That is, so long as they get over the 1/1 rating "problem" they might have with it all.

 

We can't save everyone, and if they want to leave the game and stop participating because they don't want to make an effort, that's just fine.

Link to comment
As for a hike, it can still be the focus, and can still be described in the listing. There will still be an event, and an active activity to take part in if one chooses. WHAT. IS. THE. PROBLEM? :anicute:
Imagine that DocentCouple want to lead their geocaching friends on a guided tour through a preserve that is normally closed to the public.

 

On the local geocaching forums, they announce the hike, the departure time from the trailhead, the estimated return time, etc. They post the same information on a couple local Facebook groups.

 

On geocaching.com, they create an Event Cache™ listing with the same information, but the volunteer reviewer won't publish it unless they add a half-hour meet-n-greet that starts half an hour before the departure time and ends at the departure time. They shrug their shoulders, archive the Event Cache™ listing, and leave the hike as an unevent.

 

Everyone's happy... except for the people who rely on Event Cache™ listings to find out about gatherings of local geocachers, because they won't see the local forum announcements, the Facebook posts, etc.

Yup.

 

But one would hope that DocentCouple will still list the event on Geocaching.com, but allow for the simple minimums for on-site duration. We've been through this example, and it's no different than the others we have repeatedly seen here in this thread.

 

Join for hike.

We'll start to gather at 9am. We will head off on the hike at 9:30. Be on time so you don't miss the group if you want to join the tour and hike into the closed park area.

If you stay for the guided hike, we should be done by 2pm.

 

Or someone else hosts a coffee stop event before the hike/tour, and says that they're also going to join DocentCouple at Weareclosed Park at 9:30 for a tour..."join us there if you're interested in coming along..."

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

 

If everything what such events are really about has to happen outside of the geocaching.com event (it can be part of the listing, yes I know), why bother to use gc.com at all?

 

Well...

You don't host events, so this discussion is moot.

 

No, it isn't. Because I enjoy such events and as not many active events take place in my area, I watch out for other areas too. However I'm not part of local cliques, facebook networks etc.

 

We've shown you proof that you can still do the things you like to do via Event Cache listings on Geocaching.com. Now you just need to help those who do host events in your region to know what is still possible under the guidelines.

 

They are aware of that anyway. The question is just whether they feel it pays off to do what is required. Why should the Docent e.g. choose to list his event on gc.com?

Of course someone else could come along and do it with the variant you suggested, but that's quite a weird solution in my opinion for something which should have a much nicer solution in my opinion.

 

We can't save everyone, and if they want to leave the game and stop participating because they don't want to make an effort, that's just fine.

 

Actually, I think that the Docent in NiraD's example takes the right decision when doing it as unevent when Groundspeak apparently has no interest into all what it is about. Why should anyone feel the wish to turn such a special thing (such tours are not offered regularly) into something as cheap as another time window for collecting smilies? Those who do not want or cannot join such a tour, have so many other options for meeting cachers. Why must it be exactly this event?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
But one would hope that DocentCouple will still list the event on Geocaching.com, but allow for the simple minimums for on-site duration.
Why would they? The volunteer reviewer made it pretty clear that Groundspeak doesn't want to list their geocaching event as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™. And they have other ways to let their geocaching friends know about their geocaching event.

 

We've been through this example, and it's no different than the others we have repeatedly seen here in this thread.
I think it's different, in that it shows the organizer of a geocaching event giving up on the idea of listing it as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™.

 

For many, that is a more reasonable approach than listing a half-hour meet-n-greet before their event, just to qualify for a Geocaching.com Event Cache™ listing.

Link to comment

niraD, you answered your own question when you gave your example. One would hope DocentCouple would make that extra little effort to get their activity listed on gc.com. This would allow newbies and others to know about the activity. Of course if they do not want to be inclusive and wish to restrict attendance to those who already get the info on their local social media so be it.

Link to comment
But one would hope that DocentCouple will still list the event on Geocaching.com, but allow for the simple minimums for on-site duration.
Why would they? The volunteer reviewer made it pretty clear that Groundspeak doesn't want to list their geocaching event as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™. And they have other ways to let their geocaching friends know about their geocaching event.

 

We've been through this example, and it's no different than the others we have repeatedly seen here in this thread.
I think it's different, in that it shows the organizer of a geocaching event giving up on the idea of listing it as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™.

 

For many, that is a more reasonable approach than listing a half-hour meet-n-greet before their event, just to qualify for a Geocaching.com Event Cache™ listing.

 

niraD, you answered your own question when you gave your example. One would hope DocentCouple would make that extra little effort to get their activity listed on gc.com. This would allow newbies and others to know about the activity. Of course if they do not want to be inclusive and wish to restrict attendance to those who already get the info on their local social media so be it.

Ding ding ding! There's your answer!

 

Geocaching.com sees Event Caches™ as a way to socialize, meet others, get to know new people, invite newbies to get to know some of those they only "see in the logbook", etc. Not only that, but it has the nice bonus of likely building and supporting a user base which purchases Travel Bugs, Geocoins, Premium Memberships, Groundspeak's containers and logbooks and swag...etc etc etc. Cha-Ching! $$$

 

If you want to have it be for geocachers, you can get more socialization and bring new and/unfamiliar people into the fold by hosting events.

 

If I'm going to see a Twins Baseball game, I could have a pre-game pint event, and invite geocachers to meet me at the pub. Then, if they're interested in baseball too, they could grab some tickets and go too. If they really want to get organized (in the logs for the event, perhaps! Woah!), people could also talk about plans for buying a block of GA tickets together so we can meet geocachers at the Event Cache™, and then continue the fun at an non-Event Cache™ event.

Link to comment
If you want to have it be for geocachers, you can get more socialization and bring new and/unfamiliar people into the fold by hosting events.
Sure. Assuming that Groundspeak will list your event. Or that you want to change your event so that Groundspeak will list it (and that you even think to make those changes).

 

Not everyone sets out with the goal of creating a Geocaching.com Event Cache™. Some people set out with the goal of creating a specific type of geocaching event. If it can be listed as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™, then they'll do so. If not, then not.

 

Around here, there have been, and will continue to be, geocaching events that are not listed as Geocaching.com Event Caches™. Some of them used to be listed as Geocaching.com Event Caches™, but then Groundspeak's guidelines changed (or the then-current interpretation of the guidelines changed). So they aren't listed as as Geocaching.com Event Caches™ any more.

Link to comment

Geocaching.com sees Event Caches™ as a way to socialize, meet others, get to know new people, invite newbies to get to know some of those they only "see in the logbook", etc.

 

I think that someone who would like a moving event get published, has the same intent.

 

Not only that, but it has the nice bonus of likely building and supporting a user base which purchases Travel Bugs, Geocoins, Premium Memberships, Groundspeak's containers and logbooks and swag...etc etc etc. Cha-Ching! $$$

 

That confuses me as this is Groundspeak's goal. So if they want to have certain events on their site, I'd would make sense to be more welcoming and not saying to people like the Docent, you can announce your activity if you host something different on gc.com than what you wanted.

 

If you want to have it be for geocachers, you can get more socialization and bring new and/unfamiliar people into the fold by hosting events.

 

The idea of any geocaching event is to have it for geocachers. Groundspeak does not own geocaching.

The point is just that the Docent wants to offer his tour to geocachers and not a 30minutes pretour period and even less if what Groundspeak warmly welcomes is only the pretour activity.

 

If I'm going to see a Twins Baseball game, I could have a pre-game pint event, and invite geocachers to meet me at the pub. Then, if they're interested in baseball too, they could grab some tickets and go too.

 

I would not compare that to the example made above. Probably the cachers will sit even far apart.

 

I wonder if Groundspeak has a real interest into getting moving geocaching events known which they do not want to publish as

events on their site. If so they could have something like an announcing board for such activities of the local communities. That's also an extra effort for the event hosts, but a more natural one that many more will be willing to go once it becomes known that it exists. Of course this then does not increase the number of gc.com events and that's probably a target of Groundspeak as non gc.com events are not transformable into smilies.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

If I'm going to see a Twins Baseball game, I could have a pre-game pint event, and invite geocachers to meet me at the pub. Then, if they're interested in baseball too, they could grab some tickets and go too.

 

I would not compare that to the example made above. Probably the cachers will sit even far apart.

 

Cute. You conveniently left out the key part of what I was saying:

If they really want to get organized (in the logs for the event, perhaps! Woah!), people could also talk about plans for buying a block of GA tickets together so we can meet geocachers at the Event Cache™, and then continue the fun at an non-Event Cache™ event.

 

As if never before, I'm convinced you just like to troll--to argue for the sake of arguing. Have a Disney Day! :grin:

 

Ingredients

 

2 tablespoons sugar

1 tablespoon kosher salt*

1 tablespoon pure olive oil

3/4 cup warm water

2 cups bread flour (for bread machines)

1 teaspoon instant yeast

2 teaspoons olive oil

Olive oil, for the pizza crust

Flour, for dusting the pizza peel

Toppings:

1 1/2 ounces pizza sauce

1/2 teaspoon each chopped fresh herbs such as thyme, oregano, red pepper flakes, for example

A combination of 3 grated cheeses such as mozzarella, Monterey Jack, and provolone

 

Directions

 

Place the sugar, salt, olive oil, water, 1 cup of flour, yeast, and remaining cup of flour into a standing mixer's work bowl. Using the paddle attachment, start the mixer on low and mix until the dough just comes together, forming a ball. Lube the hook attachment with cooking spray. Attach the hook to the mixer and knead for 15 minutes on medium speed.

 

Tear off a small piece of dough and flatten into a disc. Stretch the dough until thin. Hold it up to the light and look to see if the baker's windowpane, or taut membrane, has formed. If the dough tears before it forms, knead the dough for an additional 5 to 10 minutes.

 

Roll the pizza dough into a smooth ball on the countertop. Place into a stainless steel or glass bowl. Add 2 teaspoons of olive oil to the bowl and toss to coat. Cover with plastic wrap and refrigerate for 18 to 24 hours.

 

Place the pizza stone or tile onto the bottom of a cold oven and turn the oven to its highest temperature, about 500 degrees F. If the oven has coils on the oven floor, place the tile onto the lowest rack of the oven. Split the pizza dough into 2 equal parts using a knife or a dough scraper. Flatten into a disk onto the countertop and then fold the dough into a ball.

 

Wet hands barely with water and rub them onto the countertop to dampen the surface. Roll the dough on the surface until it tightens. Cover one ball with a tea towel and rest for 30 minutes.

 

Repeat the steps with the other piece of dough. If not baking the remaining pizza immediately, spray the inside of a ziptop bag with cooking spray and place the dough ball into the bag. Refrigerate for up to 6 days.

 

Sprinkle the flour onto the peel and place the dough onto the peel. Using your hands, form a lip around the edges of the pizza. Stretch the dough into a round disc, rotating after each stretch. Toss the dough in the air if you dare. Shake the pizza on the peel to be sure that it will slide onto the pizza stone or tile. (Dress and bake the pizza immediately for a crisp crust or rest the dough for 30 minutes if you want a chewy texture.)

 

Brush the rim of the pizza with olive oil. Spread the pizza sauce evenly onto the pizza. Sprinkle the herbs onto the pizza and top with the cheese.

Link to comment

 

If I'm going to see a Twins Baseball game, I could have a pre-game pint event, and invite geocachers to meet me at the pub. Then, if they're interested in baseball too, they could grab some tickets and go too.

 

I would not compare that to the example made above. Probably the cachers will sit even far apart.

 

Cute. You conveniently left out the key part of what I was saying:

If they really want to get organized (in the logs for the event, perhaps! Woah!), people could also talk about plans for buying a block of GA tickets together so we can meet geocachers at the Event Cache™, and then continue the fun at an non-Event Cache™ event.

 

As if never before, I'm convinced you just like to troll--to argue for the sake of arguing. Have a Disney Day! :grin:

 

No, I have read all of your post and my intent is not to troll. If you cannot see the difference between what NiraD suggested as event and what you talk about above, I cannot change it and have to accept it. This does not turn me into a troll, however.

 

By the way, you did not comment on the alternative suggestion of having an announcement board which would leave the events as they are and intended and still make them known to gc.com cachers. I had that idea after the other event has been closed down upon your request.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

 

I also told you that the policy of Groundspeak makes me feel that they tolerate the mention of hikes, bike rides etc on event listings, but have no particular interest that such activities are parts of events and not even that they are listed as additional activities. The way they argue makes me feel that the most important two aspects for them are making the job for the reviewers easier and having simple rules when to log an attended log.

 

Tolerate isn't the right word. Instead, an event host can put ANYTHING (within reason) they want to put on the cache page that follows the event, as long as the guidelines are being met for what constitutes an event as Groundspeak defines it. You're right that Groundspeak does NOT care what follows on the cache page, as long as the event meets the new guidelines. That does NOT mean that they view hikes, biking, kayaking, or eating as one having more value than another. That's a false assumption because Groundspeak has no value assigned to the hike, the biking, the kayaking, or the pizza eating. They don't care and don't place ANY value on the following activities because that's not part of what they've defined an event can be, and that's the crux of your issue and as it stands right now, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. You think it will deter people from hosting events in the future while most of the rest of us think it won't really change much at all. Neither of us is going to change the others' mindsets. The major difference is that we're saying that you can still do the hike you want to do; it just won't be "sanctioned" by Groundspeak. You haven't said if you'd go on the hike or not, only that the event is devalued because the hike isn't part of the event anymore. Would you go on the hike that follows the 30 minute trailhead meet and greet? I know I would.

 

The host of the event is the one that determines what will follow and that is usually the purpose to get together in order to do whatever is is the host is planning. Do you really think people who want to go hiking host a 30 minute meet and greet before the event because that's what they REALLY want to do? Of course not. They host the event that way because that's what Groundspeak has told them they need to do to get the event published so other cachers are aware that there's going to be a hike immediately following the event. In the eyes of the host, is the purpose of the event to have a meet and greet or is it to have a hike? For those events hosted at a trailhead or halfway up a trail, or out in the water, the purpose of the event is to gather geocachers to do the activity that follows (or even comes before). For those events hosted at a coffeehouse, a restaurant, or a park, it's probably more about socializing. In both cases, some show up solely to get a smiley and some show up because they want to do whatever activity the host views as the main purpose for the gathering.

 

The bolded print is exactly correct. In order to remove a reviewer's subjective approach to publish an event (in other words, how they view the guidelines and what they choose to apply because of their specific interpretations), they've simplified the process so that reviewers can look at an event objectively (in other words, without individual preferences or interpretations). You continue to make the statement that Groundspeak should care about what the main purpose of the event is and include it as part of the event. The problem on Groundspeak's end, with this approach, is that there's no continuity from Japan to Europe to the US about what events are allowed and what aren't allowed. Individual regional reviewers used to have to apply individual interpretations to their ideas of what the event guidelines meant, meaning that what some reviewers allow, others won't. That's called subjectivity and they would prefer for things to be more objective - less about what individual reviewers apply to guidelines and more about what the parent company who lists the events wants. Look at it this way. An international company has some rules in place, but managers around the world are interpreting them differently. Workers who get transferred from one location to another find out that what used to be allowed at their old location is now no longer allowed at their new location, even though it's the same company with the same rules. The board of directors gets wind of this and decides to change the rules so it's easier for their managers to interpret them the same, meaning that what is allowed at one location is the same thing allowed at another location. The managers can now no longer selectively apply the rules that the parent company has in place because they're more specific and less open to individual beliefs.

 

 

I already explained why it does not. The idea of a skating event is not yet another smilie distribution event for those for whom there are plenty of events to choose from.

If it were allowed to have the event inside the skating area, the situation would considerably improve. However that was denied due to the entrance fee.

 

You said that the entrance fee was only part of the reason for the problems, not that it was the sole reason. I again say that it's ground for appeals (at least the entrance fee portion) because there are some facilities that charge an entrance fee (state parks, city parks) and those events are published, with the fee listed.

 

 

It seems to make much more sense to me to organize events which cannot be Groundspeak events due to the guidelines outside of gc.com than organizing an event on gc.com that complies with the guidelines and has nothing to do with the planned event and just use the event listing to announce the activity of the planned event as something that happens outside of the gc.com event.

 

If everything what such events are really about has to happen outside of the geocaching.com event (it can be part of the listing, yes I know), why bother to use gc.com at all?

The way Groundspeak proceeds makes me believe that they would not miss such events at all on their site. Maybe I'm wrong. This is just a feeling.

 

You can do those things if you wish. No one is stopping you, but newer cachers or non-local cachers won't be privy to those events, meaning that you'll see the same people again and again until you finally realize you're not meeting anyone new and it's the same group of people doing the exact same things again and again. How will you meet foreigners, travelers, or new cachers who might bring a jolt of energy or excitement to your event? You won't and geocaching in your area (both events and caches) will die a slow death because you won't be seen as welcoming or open to new cachers, meaning no new caches from new hiders because they won't put out something for people who are excluding them (intentionally or not) from activities. (I can make doom and gloom predictions too, with no factual basis, only conjecture and implications I think might happen based on my personal beliefs.)

Link to comment

Why should the Docent e.g. choose to list his event on gc.com?

 

Actually, I think that the Docent in NiraD's example takes the right decision when doing it as unevent when Groundspeak apparently has no interest into all what it is about. Why should anyone feel the wish to turn such a special thing (such tours are not offered regularly) into something as cheap as another time window for collecting smilies? Those who do not want or cannot join such a tour, have so many other options for meeting cachers. Why must it be exactly this event?

If the park is closed to the general public because it's a private facility, the docent is doing a great disservice to the owners/operators of the park by canceling the event because the hike can't be part of the event.

 

Geocachers like to get outside (even if it's an LPC or a guardrail cache, it's still outside). A facility that preserves, maintains, and nurtures the environment is exactly the type of place that geocachers might actually take an interest in doing some volunteer work for, some volunteer maintenance/CITO work, reduced fees to provide services (if they own a business that the facility can use), or even provide funding, either individually or through efforts that might include a fund raiser that the facility operator wouldn't have to be involved in much and still reap the beneficial rewards that would come their way.

 

Canceling the event PROHIBITS the possibility that these things might even occur. That is a selfish decision by someone who supposedly values this preserve enough to volunteer their time and effort. Why would anyone reject possible beneficial outcomes on the sole point of contention that you can't have a hike as part of the event?

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment
Why should the Docent e.g. choose to list his event on gc.com?

 

Actually, I think that the Docent in NiraD's example takes the right decision when doing it as unevent when Groundspeak apparently has no interest into all what it is about. Why should anyone feel the wish to turn such a special thing (such tours are not offered regularly) into something as cheap as another time window for collecting smilies? Those who do not want or cannot join such a tour, have so many other options for meeting cachers. Why must it be exactly this event?

If the park is closed to the general public because it's a private facility, the docent is doing a great disservice to the owners/operators of the park by canceling the event because the hike can't be part of the event.
Who said anything about cancelling the event? In my semi-hypothetical example, the event went on as originally planned. Geocachers showed up and enjoyed a docent-led tour.

 

The event wasn't listed as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™, but it still took place. That happens regularly around here. Some types of events, Groundspeak never published as Geocaching.com Event Caches™. Others, Groundspeak no longer publishes as Geocaching.com Event Caches™. That doesn't mean the events themselves have to stop.

 

But of course, geocaching is dying a slow death around here, because we aren't meeting anyone new, and it's the same group of people doing the exact same thing again and again, and we never meet foreigners, travelers, or new cachers.

Link to comment

Why should the Docent e.g. choose to list his event on gc.com?

 

Actually, I think that the Docent in NiraD's example takes the right decision when doing it as unevent when Groundspeak apparently has no interest into all what it is about. Why should anyone feel the wish to turn such a special thing (such tours are not offered regularly) into something as cheap as another time window for collecting smilies? Those who do not want or cannot join such a tour, have so many other options for meeting cachers. Why must it be exactly this event?

If the park is closed to the general public because it's a private facility, the docent is doing a great disservice to the owners/operators of the park by canceling the event because the hike can't be part of the event.

 

I have the same objection as NiraD. Assume that the event will still happen, but not as a geocaching.com event. In my opinion it is rather Groundspeak's turn to deal with this situation and

for example to come up with ways to publicize such events which are not regarded as publishable as event on their site according to their new rules.

 

It's not the event host (Docent or whomever) who should be asked to submit a completely different and artificial event listing on gc.com.

 

 

Geocachers like to get outside (even if it's an LPC or a guardrail cache, it's still outside). A facility that preserves, maintains, and nurtures the environment is exactly the type of place that geocachers might actually take an interest in doing some volunteer work for, some volunteer maintenance/CITO work, reduced fees to provide services (if they own a business that the facility can use), or even provide funding, either individually or through efforts that might include a fund raiser that the facility operator wouldn't have to be involved in much and still reap the beneficial rewards that would come their way.

 

I fully agree even despite the situation in my country is very different.

 

I never said anything about canceling the event. It is just about not listing it as geocaching.com if Groundspeak does not want to have such events on their site which is their right.

 

If I want roses and shop 1 does not offer roses, I will not buy narcissas there if there is another shop that offers roses, not even if that other shop is farther away or has higher prices.

 

Canceling the event PROHIBITS the possibility that these things might even occur. That is a selfish decision by someone who supposedly values this preserve enough to volunteer their time and effort. Why would anyone reject possible beneficial outcomes on the sole point of contention that you can't have a hike as part of the event?

 

See the above. It is not about canceling. It should be in Groundspeak's interest that not so well connected cachers get to know about such events. For the event host it will suffice to reach some locals and well connected cachers in most areas (probably more than there will places for such a tour).

Link to comment

Tolerate isn't the right word.

 

It describes perfectly how it feels to me and others.

 

 

The major difference is that we're saying that you can still do the hike you want to do; it just won't be "sanctioned" by Groundspeak.

 

I never questioned that.

 

You haven't said if you'd go on the hike or not, only that the event is devalued because the hike isn't part of the event anymore. Would you go on the hike that follows the 30 minute trailhead meet and greet? I know I would.

 

Yes, I would if the hike is suitable to me and I would not have to go alone - if this is not fulfilled, I would not show up at all and definitely would not log attended.

 

However, many among the small group of cachers in my area who are interested into hosting events which involve a hike or something along these lines are willing to host a meet and greet and mention the rest as outside event activity. So the question is not whether I would attend the hike in your scenario.

 

If an event cache is published that is a 30 minutes meet and greet, many more will show up, log an attended log and do not take part in the hike/skating etc activity than if taking part in the activity is not enforced (like it is not enforced that someone stays at an event for a certain minimum time), but the write-up of the event makes it clear that the activity is central and not the meet and greet is all what the event cache is about. There will be certainly event hosts who do not care as they intended to offer the meet and greet option anyway and see this as central part of their event. Those who have to include the meet and greet only to get their event published, will not be as happy.

 

Most of the issues would be solved at once by not counting attended logs for the found count any longer and not to award souvenirs for events. Unfortunately, Groundspeak will never take that step and as long as they don't, it seems much better for event hosts who do not want to host events that serve as smilie supply do not host their moving events at gc.com.

That's not about controlling anyone. If one sends out invitations to a non Groundspeak geocaching event, then one cannot guarantee that no one will show up and then not take part in the hike, skating etc, but for sure the proportion who just comes for a few minutes will tend to zero and one will not end up with more than 50% partipicants which do not take part.

 

The number of those who drive 50km to a boring parking lot just to talk 5 minutes to some people before they leave for a hike, is drastically reduced if there no things to be earned on Groundspeak and statistics pages.

 

 

 

Do you really think people who want to go hiking host a 30 minute meet and greet before the event because that's what they REALLY want to do? Of course not. They host the event that way because that's what Groundspeak has told them they need to do to get the event published so other cachers are aware that there's going to be a hike immediately following the event.

 

SOmehow most people in my area are not willing to comply that quickly with what an authority might ask them to do.

There are other ways to make other cachers aware of the hike. They are not perfect either, but at least it's not settling in with someone one does not feel comfortable with and let Groundspeak win.

 

In the eyes of the host, is the purpose of the event to have a meet and greet or is it to have a hike? For those events hosted at a trailhead or halfway up a trail, or out in the water, the purpose of the event is to gather geocachers to do the activity that follows (or even comes before). For those events hosted at a coffeehouse, a restaurant, or a park, it's probably more about socializing. In both cases, some show up solely to get a smiley and some show up because they want to do whatever activity the host views as the main purpose for the gathering.

 

Yes, but the proportions will differ. In any case, as said the above, the by far best solution would be remove smilies from events.

 

The problem on Groundspeak's end, with this approach, is that there's no continuity from Japan to Europe to the US about what events are allowed and what aren't allowed. Individual regional reviewers used to have to apply individual interpretations to their ideas of what the event guidelines meant, meaning that what some reviewers allow, others won't. That's called subjectivity and they would prefer for things to be more objective

 

Even now there is no continuity and clarity.

 

There are many other alternative approaches which are all better than suggesting the usage of the workaround.

For example:

 

(1) Having a sort of announcement board for moving events that are not publishable as gc.com events.

 

(2) Even better: Abolishing smilies and souvenirs for events.

 

(3) Writing up clear rules. From the points of consistency there would not a problem to

require 30 minutes at the posted coordinates and allow attended logs for everyone who attends the event

within this time window (the logging window) and allowing additional optional activities to take place within the event.

It's just a matter of definition and good will.

 

You said that the entrance fee was only part of the reason for the problems, not that it was the sole reason.

 

The other was that the cache owner encouraged the signing of the log cloth (did not enforce it, but encouraged it instead of even adding explicitely that everyone is free to attend without paying the entrance fee and without signing the log cloth). The event got published after a rewriting and turning it into something which was not any longer the event intended.

I fully understand the decision to have this event next year outside of gc.com. There are well enough participants - there is no need to use gc.com

and there are so many events for newcomers to which they can go.

 

I again say that it's ground for appeals (at least the entrance fee portion) because there are some facilities that charge an entrance fee (state parks, city parks) and those events are published, with the fee listed.

 

Maybe, at least in my country there are no such events.

 

You can do those things if you wish. No one is stopping you, but newer cachers or non-local cachers won't be privy to those events, meaning that you'll see the same people again and again until you finally realize you're not meeting anyone new and it's the same group of people doing the exact same things again and again.

 

I do not think that if a hiking or skating event takes place once a year this effect will be that dramatic. There are many other events where new cachers can establish contacts during the rest of the year.

The only issue might be non locals which then are the losers and Groundspeak apparently does not care.

 

 

How will you meet foreigners, travelers, or new cachers who might bring a jolt of energy or excitement to your event? You won't and geocaching in your area (both events and caches) will die a slow death because you won't be seen as welcoming or open to new cachers, meaning no new caches from new hiders because they won't put out something for people who are excluding them (intentionally or not) from activities. (I can make doom and gloom predictions too, with no factual basis, only conjecture and implications I think might happen based on my personal beliefs.)

 

At the point where these people get to know about certain moving events (taking place outside of gc.com), they can take part anyway. When they don't know they can hardly feel excluded.

The alternative might be to have no such active moving events at all - neither on gc.com nor outside and certainly not hosting unwanted meet and greets.

Link to comment

Oh my. This thread will be the death of me. I'm like a moth to the flame; how long until my wings disintigrate and I fall to my untimely demise?

 

If an event cache is published that is a 30 minutes meet and greet, many more will show up, log an attended log and do not take part in the hike/skating etc activity than if taking part in the activity is not enforced (like it is not enforced that someone stays at an event for a certain minimum time), but the write-up of the event makes it clear that the activity is central and not the meet and greet is all what the event cache is about. There will be certainly event hosts who do not care as they intended to offer the meet and greet option anyway and see this as central part of their event. Those who have to include the meet and greet only to get their event published, will not be as happy.

 

So, that is crux of your argument - forcing people to do an activity, and that people will be upset when they can no longer do that.

That's precisely the type of event Groundspeak does not want to allow, which knowingly will result in some people (very few in the grand scheme) leaving who are so dead-set on doing things their own way that they can't fathom a simple compromise. That's precisely the result that Groundspeak would expect and accept.

Every decision they make upsets some people. They can't make everyone happy. And in this case, I still don't a decent argument that might change their mind.

 

Most of the issues would be solved at once by not counting attended logs for the found count any longer and not to award souvenirs for events. Unfortunately, Groundspeak will never take that step and as long as they don't, it seems much better for event hosts who do not want to host events that serve as smilie supply do not host their moving events at gc.com.

Yup.

 

The number of those who drive 50km to a boring parking lot just to talk 5 minutes to some people before they leave for a hike, is drastically reduced if there no things to be earned on Groundspeak and statistics pages.

What do you care what such people do? Would you not rather go hiking with people who want to go hiking? If people who only want a smiley come to an event and leave, what difference does that make to you? You choose to be bothered and saddened by the fact that a large group of "attendees" decide to leave before the hike. Don't take it personally. They didn't want to do the hike. So it would have been better to list the event elsewhere anyway - then you wouldn't get the false impression by the crowd size that so many wanted to do the hike.

 

Who cares what other people do? Provide an event that people might enjoy. Whoever comes comes. Whoever doesn't doesn't. Whoever comes for their own reasons - who cares.

 

SOmehow most people in my area are not willing to comply that quickly with what an authority might ask them to do.

That certainly seems to be the case.

 

Yes, but the proportions will differ.

Who cares how many people come or don't come?

Who cares if half the people come for the event and not for the hike?

 

(1) Having a sort of announcement board for moving events that are not publishable as gc.com events.

Groundspeak won't become a social network. They let you decide how and where to announce events, whether they are listed on gc.com or not. They already provide a list of local events in the periodic email newsletter. Whether you think that's enough or not. It's highly unlikely, at best, they will provide a public 'announcement board' that functions more than the forums or social networks already do.

 

(3) Writing up clear rules. From the points of consistency there would not a problem to require 30 minutes at the posted coordinates and allow attended logs for everyone who attends the event within this time window (the logging window) and allowing additional optional activities to take place within the event. It's just a matter of definition and good will.

Good. That's already done. Solved! (well, writing clear rules is an ongoing thing, obviously, whether because of language barriers or frontline people who push the rules' interpretations as far as they can go, often ruining it for others who understand the spirit of the guidelines)

 

Does anybody know how to get this tome in Nook format so I can read it on the plane on the way to my next cruise?

You may need to manually revisit every single page to copy and paste its content into a document first. Dare you?

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

So, that is crux of your argument - forcing people to do an activity, and that people will be upset when they can no longer do that.

 

No, not forcing them, but not to provide encouragement and reasons for attending events not for the sake of the planned event.

As I mentioned in the ice skating example, in none of the four previous editions, ice skating has been enforced either.

 

If however an event is announced as 30 minutes meet and greet, then the majority will come to attend a meet and greet without any interest into

the activity which is not even part of the event, and such participants are what is to be the expected norm for events which are listed as suggested.

 

If the logging window is open for 30 minutes, but it is made clear that the event includes the hike, much less cachers will come and not attend the hike

even though there is the same option to log attended logs in both cases - it is just the attended logs will have different meanings to the attendants.

 

It's not the same to attend a meet and a greet and to attend a hike even if the logging rules on gc.com do not make a dinstiction (and do not need to make).

 

For example, in case of a meet and greet followed by a hike, I would not log an attended log if I were not there for the full 30 minutes even if afterwards staying for 6 hours.

 

The attended log corresponds to the official part of the event.

 

 

That's precisely the type of event Groundspeak does not want to allow, which knowingly will result in some people (very few in the grand scheme) leaving who are so dead-set on doing things their own way that they can't fathom a simple compromise. That's precisely the result that Groundspeak would expect and accept.

 

Which compromise? As I said the logging options are the same and the set of allowed attended logs does not change. What changes is just who shows up and logs what.

 

So you mean that Groundspeak has an active interest to draw people into attending a hiking event by visiting a parking lot for 5 minutes? There is no doubt that such logs are allowed to stand.

My question was whether Groundspeak has an active interest into encouraging it? If the answer is yes, it means exactly what I wrote in other posts: They tolerate the mention of other activities that can happen after or before the event, but they consider the meet and greet as the real event and what's the spirit behind the published event. And this causes a conflict for those event hosts and event attendants for whom the meet and greet is just what is required to get the event listed on gc.com, but who do not assign the slightest value to the meet and greet part.

 

How should an event host feel comfortable with an event listing where the official part of the event is about something unwanted and enforced? Those who attend and expect a true meet and greet, will end up disappointed too. I think it is much more authentic not to use the workaround if one is not intending to offer a real meet and greet up to the spirit of meet and greets and not just do it because it is needed to list an event on gc.com. It's the more courageous and sincere decision not to host such events on gc.com if they are unwanted there.

 

I still don't a decent argument that might change their mind.

 

I do not think there is one. I think that those who regard adding a meet and greet insincere with respect to their real intent, should rather refrain from submitting their events on gc.com and have them organized differently than using the workaround. Those who feel differently (certainly not a small group), can use the workaround, and both is fine if it feels ok to the event host.

 

What do you care what such people do? Would you not rather go hiking with people who want to go hiking? If people who only want a smiley come to an event and leave, what difference does that make to you?

 

A lot of event hosts will feel a difference and moreover, it of course also makes a difference e.g. with respect of the required size of the parking lot.

As I said, one cannot avoid that someone comes and does not take part even for an event outside of gc.com and there is no need for enforcing it.

The difference will be that when 50 such cases arise for a gc.com it might be 1 or 2 such cases for an event outside. That's a reasonable proportion.

 

Who cares what other people do? Provide an event that people might enjoy. Whoever comes comes. Whoever doesn't doesn't. Whoever comes for their own reasons - who cares.

 

Again it is Groundspeak's side that bothers me the most. They apparently support the view that what's most important is logging attended logs and receiving smilies and souvenirs.

 

(1) Having a sort of announcement board for moving events that are not publishable as gc.com events.

Groundspeak won't become a social network.

 

Hopefully not. This is not what I meant.

 

They simply could have a category for moving events which are sent to the calendar by the reviewers who publish them, but which are not eligible for smilies.

 

 

(3) Writing up clear rules. From the points of consistency there would not a problem to require 30 minutes at the posted coordinates and allow attended logs for everyone who attends the event within this time window (the logging window) and allowing additional optional activities to take place within the event. It's just a matter of definition and good will.

Good. That's already done. Solved! (well, writing clear rules is an ongoing thing, obviously, whether because of language barriers or frontline people who push the rules' interpretations as far as they can go, often ruining it for others who understand the spirit of the guidelines)

 

So can it then happen that NeverSummer got a reply that contradicts what The Jester was told?

How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?

These are not borderline cases. The reason is just unclear rules.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

By the way, you did not comment on the alternative suggestion of having an announcement board which would leave the events as they are and intended and still make them known to gc.com cachers. I had that idea after the other event has been closed down upon your request.

Huh? I was supposed to respond to suggestions? I don't work for Groundspeak...

 

Have you added that idea to the Website suggestion topic?

Link to comment
So, that is crux of your argument - forcing people to do an activity, and that people will be upset when they can no longer do that.
If I invite you to a Super Bowl party, are you then forced to watch the Super Bowl?

 

If I invite you to a game night, are you then forced to play games?

 

If I invite you to a dinner cruise, are you then forced to dine on a yacht?

Link to comment

So can it then happen that NeverSummer got a reply that contradicts what The Jester was told?

Can it happen? Sure. But I'll say it again:

I was able to provide direct quotes from Appeals on the subject. Not only was the answer from appeals provided, but it also confirmed what at least a handful of other Reviewers have been doing for review already. As of this moment, we have definitive and clear answers to our questions.

 

What TheJester provided was hearsay--it isn't on record, and it isn't official. Just because a conversation off the record occurs with someone who sometimes wears a Lackey hat happens, we don't have a contradictory stance from the official word quoted from Groundspeak Appeals.

 

If TheJester wants to get that unnamed Lackey to come to this thread and say, as a Lackey, what he claims they said, then--and only then--will be have a reply that contradicts what I was able to obtain. (That, or you can submit an event listing of your own, and then take it to Appeals for review...) <eyeroll>

 

How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?

These are not borderline cases. The reason is just unclear rules.

You have come to find what I was saying to you back in the D/T 1/1 Event thread from last year: Things are inconsistent across regions! From what my discussion with my Reviewer, Appeals, and together, the clear line is that Groundspeak is aware of the inconsistencies, and is working with Reviewers and Lackey staff to adjust review process and align the guidelines with Groundspeak guidance and intent--to rein in the inconsistency and adjust/clarify guidelines.

 

If people in your region believe that their event should be published, they can appeal the Reviewer's review. Groundspeak was careful in allowing that process to be part of any submission as necessary...instead of being a hard-lining, completely deaf-eared company.

Link to comment
How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?
Without studying the details of the events, my guess would be that it is a judgement call by the volunteer reviewers, distinguishing between events that "require attendees to purchase a product or service" and events that "charge a fee to cover legitimate costs of the event".

 

Some volunteer reviewers may lean one way, and others may lean the other way.

Link to comment
How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?
Without studying the details of the events, my guess would be that it is a judgement call by the volunteer reviewers, distinguishing between events that "require attendees to purchase a product or service" and events that "charge a fee to cover legitimate costs of the event".

 

Some volunteer reviewers may lean one way, and others may lean the other way.

 

What you write makes sense. One can of course debate how to categorize the entrance fee for an ice skating area, in particular if Groundspeak's stance is that every event can be turned in a meet and greet.

As I have mentioned before for the giga event in Munich e.g. a solution was enforced to offer an option to log without paying for the legitimate costs of the event as a real participant.

 

I wonder whether it will ever come to the situation that they require a log option for those who do not wish to enter the restaurant where an event takes place, not even for 30 seconds.

Link to comment
How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?
Without studying the details of the events, my guess would be that it is a judgement call by the volunteer reviewers, distinguishing between events that "require attendees to purchase a product or service" and events that "charge a fee to cover legitimate costs of the event".

 

Some volunteer reviewers may lean one way, and others may lean the other way.

And others might have a language which translates "purchase of a product or service" or "charge a fee to cover legitimate costs" differently--or inaccurately. Precision might only be gained with clarification and additional stipulations in the guidelines.

 

One Reviewer might interpret the English "service" to mean something very closely resembling what we simply see as the fee charged for admission to a park or building (for example).

 

This is where an appeal is helpful for the Reviewer AND the geocachers--it opens up discussion for meaning and interpretation more aligned with what Groundspeak is trying to guide, versus simply blindly following a bias or personal interpretation.

Link to comment

So can it then happen that NeverSummer got a reply that contradicts what The Jester was told?

Can it happen? Sure. But I'll say it again:

I was able to provide direct quotes from Appeals on the subject. Not only was the answer from appeals provided, but it also confirmed what at least a handful of other Reviewers have been doing for review already. As of this moment, we have definitive and clear answers to our questions.

 

I fully agree.

 

What TheJester provided was hearsay--it isn't on record, and it isn't official. Just because a conversation off the record occurs with someone who sometimes wears a Lackey hat happens, we don't have a contradictory stance from the official word quoted from Groundspeak Appeals.

 

Again I agree. However I think the fact that we needed to rely on getting an answer from appeals and that it took them quite a while and the fact that different people from Groundspeak provide different answers is an indication that the formulation of the guidelines is less clear than it could/should be.

 

You have come to find what I was saying to you back in the D/T 1/1 Event thread from last year: Things are inconsistent across regions! From what my discussion with my Reviewer, Appeals, and together, the clear line is that Groundspeak is aware of the inconsistencies, and is working with Reviewers and Lackey staff to adjust review process and align the guidelines with Groundspeak guidance and intent--to rein in the inconsistency and adjust/clarify guidelines.

 

If the guidelines were clear so that everyone who makes an effort understands them in the same manner, then all that work and effort would be completely unnecessary. So I do let my statement stand: The formulations are not clear enough in several respects (also e.g. including the issue of entrance fees).

Link to comment
How could it be that in my country the major reviewer insists on not publishing events where an entrance fee is required while other reviewers are apparently publishing such events?
Without studying the details of the events, my guess would be that it is a judgement call by the volunteer reviewers, distinguishing between events that "require attendees to purchase a product or service" and events that "charge a fee to cover legitimate costs of the event".

 

Some volunteer reviewers may lean one way, and others may lean the other way.

 

What you write makes sense. One can of course debate how to categorize the entrance fee for an ice skating area, in particular if Groundspeak's stance is that every event can be turned in a meet and greet.

As I have mentioned before for the giga event in Munich e.g. a solution was enforced to offer an option to log without paying for the legitimate costs of the event as a real participant.

 

I wonder whether it will ever come to the situation that they require a log option for those who do not wish to enter the restaurant where an event takes place, not even for 30 seconds.

Most of the places I've been to in the US would allow someone to enter the restaurant to join a group and not be obligated to pay anything for being there. (And the wait staff would probably still bring them water!)

 

If an Event Cache owner allows that person who did not enter the restaurant an "Attended" log, then it's of no concern to anyone. If an owner likes, they can delete the log of someone who clearly did not come to the event (drive by/walk by/couch log, etc.). No "new type of log" needed.

Link to comment

By the way, you did not comment on the alternative suggestion of having an announcement board which would leave the events as they are and intended and still make them known to gc.com cachers. I had that idea after the other event has been closed down upon your request.

Huh? I was supposed to respond to suggestions? I don't work for Groundspeak...

 

Of course not, but yet we discussed various options in the thread you opened and asked to be closed.

 

Have you added that idea to the Website suggestion topic?

 

No, and I will not add it there. I somehow expected to receive already here lots of negative feedback from those here and that would be a first test to pass.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

So can it then happen that NeverSummer got a reply that contradicts what The Jester was told?

Can it happen? Sure. But I'll say it again:

I was able to provide direct quotes from Appeals on the subject. Not only was the answer from appeals provided, but it also confirmed what at least a handful of other Reviewers have been doing for review already. As of this moment, we have definitive and clear answers to our questions.

 

I fully agree.

Great, can we drop it?

 

What TheJester provided was hearsay--it isn't on record, and it isn't official. Just because a conversation off the record occurs with someone who sometimes wears a Lackey hat happens, we don't have a contradictory stance from the official word quoted from Groundspeak Appeals.

 

Again I agree. However I think the fact that we needed to rely on getting an answer from appeals and that it took them quite a while and the fact that different people from Groundspeak provide different answers is an indication that the formulation of the guidelines is less clear than it could/should be.

Oh, clearly we can't drop it? <_<

 

The reply took a while because I had, at first, submitted an appeal twice without submitting a listing for publication. Once I had a cache listing to reference, Appeals responded within 24 hours. It seems that Appeals only likes to deal with REAL submissions (I can't blame them!). Thus why I encourage you, over and over, to submit the event you believe should still be publishable under the current guidelines, and see what Appeals has to say about it. (Again, you still want to say I didn't do any work for you?) :anicute:

 

You have come to find what I was saying to you back in the D/T 1/1 Event thread from last year: Things are inconsistent across regions! From what my discussion with my Reviewer, Appeals, and together, the clear line is that Groundspeak is aware of the inconsistencies, and is working with Reviewers and Lackey staff to adjust review process and align the guidelines with Groundspeak guidance and intent--to rein in the inconsistency and adjust/clarify guidelines.

 

If the guidelines were clear so that everyone who makes an effort understands them in the same manner, then all that work and effort would be completely unnecessary. So I do let my statement stand: The formulations are not clear enough in several respects (also e.g. including the issue of entrance fees).

Ah, so we agree again. And this is where Appeals and my Reviewer were clear in stating that Groundspeak is aware of these issues, and is working to reduce confusion and clarify inconsistencies.

 

Bartender: my check, please.

Link to comment

 

If however an event is announced as 30 minutes meet and greet, then the majority will come to attend a meet and greet without any interest into

the activity which is not even part of the event, and such participants are what is to be the expected norm for events which are listed as suggested.

 

This is the basis of your argument, at least to me. Do you have ANY proof to show that your belief is what is happening?

 

This event, which I've referred to several times, is exactly what most of us have been suggesting is what the new events will end up looking like. Of the 25 attended logs, ALL 25 went on the hike that followed. It's listed as a donut and pop tart eating event. Here's the write up.

 

TrailMix 23 will take place at Tipsaw Lake in the Hoosier National Forest off of Highway 37 north of Tell City, IN at 10:00am Central Time

 

The leaves have turned and there is a chill in the air. Hopefully the ticks and chiggers are bedded down for winter. It is time for another TrailMix. This is the 23rd installment of the Poptart and donut eating event.

 

What is a TrailMix? I started Trailmixes in 2006 as a way to bring cachers together of all levels of fitness levels to enjoy the outdoors. We will meet and swap stories about caching and life. When the official event is over we will unofficially hike the 6 mile loop around Tipsaw Lake. You need not to do the hike to log the event.

 

Here's the previous event. Here's a log from a friend and it goes against your argument about listing a meet and greet event instead of a hiking event and that only those interested in the smiley won't do the hike. 36 attended and only two left, one because he had a broken leg. The other one had to work. Notice also the mention of an entrance fee being possible.

 

I had intended to stop by, grab a pop tart, say hi to everyone and then cache my way back home. It was such a nice day I decided to hit the trail with great company. I’m glad I did as it turned out to be a fun day.

Thanks Deermark for all your time and effort in organizing these 1st class events…

 

TrailMix 22 will be in Deam Lake Recreation Area. If the gate is manned there will be a fee to enter the gate.

 

OK. I know it has been a long time since the last TrailMix. So now your questions are answered.

 

What is a TrailMix? It is an event where we stand around and talk caching. After the event we may even go on a hike. Possibly a long hike with a BIG HILL. Check out GC613C. This cache is locationed on the crest of a BIG HILL. Remember the event is standing around talking and you don't have to hang around to log it. Just show up for a few seconds and you can log the event.

 

If this is happening ONLY in your area, then it appears that the cachers are more interested in the smiley than they are with the hike and that's a problem for your area. If it is happening elsewhere, your argument would hold more weight with me. I'm not seeing it happen where I am so I'm more apt to believe what I see rather than what someone else tells me they believe will happen.

Link to comment

By the way, you did not comment on the alternative suggestion of having an announcement board which would leave the events as they are and intended and still make them known to gc.com cachers. I had that idea after the other event has been closed down upon your request.

Huh? I was supposed to respond to suggestions? I don't work for Groundspeak...

 

Of course not, but yet we discussed various options in the thread you opened and asked to be closed.

 

Have you added that idea to the Website suggestion topic?

 

No, and I will not add it there. I somehow expected to receive already here lots of negative feedback from those here and that would be a first test to pass.

Yeah...kind of like all threads you've participated in: Complain, but do nothing about it.

 

Even if received poorly in these threads, and if you feel you have a valid suggestion, you should submit it to that thread. It's the only way to suggest an idea and have it discussed after you've presented your case. Your poor reception here has more to do with other things than the ideas you may have bouncing around in your head. :anibad:

Edited by NeverSummer
Link to comment

If however an event is announced as 30 minutes meet and greet, then the majority will come to attend a meet and greet without any interest into

the activity which is not even part of the event, and such participants are what is to be the expected norm for events which are listed as suggested.

This is the basis of your argument, at least to me. Do you have ANY proof to show that your belief is what is happening?

 

In my country (far larger than my area) for the events I have in mind, yes. It already happened.

I do believe however that it depends on the region and also how urban the area is and how far the event is from densely populated areas with many competitive cachers.

 

I also believe that it is of advantage if in an area there existed before a tradition of using the workaround. Around here most newer cachers have almost exclusively seen events which do not include a moving activity. If they encounter an event listing which invites for a meet and greet and which is not allowed to express the host's preference they feel invited for a normal meet and greet and even the motivation of many who enjoy hiking in principle but are competitive cachers who in case of choice decide for the options that lead to quick smilies and leaves open the option for visiting many additional cache during that day.

 

My experiences with German events are not essentially different and the uproar about the giga event in Munich where so many asked for a way to log attended without ever getting into the area

where the giga takes place, reconfirms that logging has become more important for so many than anything else.

 

I'd say it is not necessarily the basis of my arguments, but one of the reasons why under the new guidelines many hosts of events with several successful previous editions decided to give up and shift their events outside of gc.com.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

If however an event is announced as 30 minutes meet and greet, then the majority will come to attend a meet and greet without any interest into

the activity which is not even part of the event, and such participants are what is to be the expected norm for events which are listed as suggested.

This is the basis of your argument, at least to me. Do you have ANY proof to show that your belief is what is happening?

 

In my country (far larger than my area) for the events I have in mind, yes. It already happened.

I do believe however that it depends on the region and also how urban the area is and how far the event is from densely populated areas with many competitive cachers.

My experiences with German events are not essentially different and the uproar about the giga event in Munich where so many asked for a way to log attended without ever getting into the area

where the giga takes place, reconfirms that logging has become more important for so many than anything else.

 

I'd say it is not necessarily the basis of my arguments, but one of the reasons why under the new guidelines many hosts of events with several successful previous editions decided to give up and shift their events outside of gc.com.

Yeah...

 

"I MUST have that icon!" "I really need to get that specific D/T for my grid!" "I really want credit for more countries!" "I want to get that 'Souvenir'!" "I really must complete that challenge, and I need to get that {insert icon, D/T combo, country, county, state, souvenir, etc. here}!"

 

Side games. And if it comes to it that a former event host wants to provide an opportunity to simply socialize, they should keep the event going. If they only care to "get what they want" or "only allow people to log who have participated in the way I want"...well, then you're headed for the bench--have fun hosting your events off of Geocaching.com! B)

Link to comment

Who said anything about cancelling the event? In my semi-hypothetical example, the event went on as originally planned. Geocachers showed up and enjoyed a docent-led tour.

 

The event wasn't listed as a Geocaching.com Event Cache™, but it still took place. That happens regularly around here. Some types of events, Groundspeak never published as Geocaching.com Event Caches™. Others, Groundspeak no longer publishes as Geocaching.com Event Caches™. That doesn't mean the events themselves have to stop.

 

 

My bad. My "event" was equivalent to your trademarked "event" and I didn't make that clear.

 

That still doesn't negate the fact that instead of reaching a larger audience, it reduced attendees to only those who knew how to access wherever this information was posted. It limits the potential audience and a private preserve, unless it has a huge endowment, needs as many donors and volunteers as it can get (semi-hypothetically).

 

I think of a few of the city parks in my city that are taking it upon themselves to raise money to make improvements in the park because the city budget for the parks department has been decreased. They wouldn't PURPOSELY limit the number of people they might hope to reach in order to raise more money or get more volunteers. That's what the docent did by canceling the Geocaching.com Event Cache™.

Link to comment

And if it comes to it that a former event host wants to provide an opportunity to simply socialize, they should keep the event going. If they only care to "get what they want" or "only allow people to log who have participated in the way I want"...well, then you're headed for the bench--have fun hosting your events off of Geocaching.com! B)

 

That's the problem: Those hosts not just want to provide an arbitrary opportunity for socializing, but one they themselves and their target audiences enjoy.

That's not an issue of logging as the alternative is to organize the events outside of gc.com where there are no logs.

If those people had wanted to include meet and greet parts, they had done so before. If it is enforced, it is not authentic from neither side.

 

Why should someone set up a meet and greet for say 150 persons and also need to take care to choose an appropriate location when the idea is to provide an opportunity for socializing for those 50 who come along on a hike?

 

Having to deal with so large groups puts a lot of constraints on possible locations that are home-made. There a way enough meet and greets for those who want to attend such events.

This might be different in your place and of course does not apply to every place.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

 

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

 

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

 

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

 

The last thing I want to do is wade into this...meaty thread, but I wanted to clarify the information that the Jester posted, as I am the Lackey to whom he is referring.

 

The hike/bike ride/moving activity can be part of/focus of the event, but there MUST be at least 30 minutes during which the event is scheduled to be at the posted coordinates. This provides people of all abilities to gather to socialize - the primary focus of all events listed on Geocaching.com - and feel welcome. The event host is expected to be present during that time, but the attendees are not required to stay for the entirety, nor are they required to participate in the secondary activity in order to log a find.

Link to comment

This past weekend, at a PI Day event, I sat down with one of the lackeys* and talked about this subject (it's nice to know so many of them and be close enough to talk face to face at times). It was stated that a hike/bike ride/moving activity CAN be part of/focus of the event. It is NOT required that someone be at the posted co-ords for the duration, but if not the CO must allow logs of people who arrived there and found nobody around (i.e.. if it's a four hour hike and someone arrives at the trailhead (posted co-ords) three hours in, they can still log the event - the event happens at the listed co-ords). If the CO isn't willing to allow such logs, they need to shorten the time to cover when they will be at the listed co-ords, which must be at least 30 minutes.

 

So hiking events can still occur as they have in the past, CO's will have to allow 'car seat' logging (as opposed to 'arm chair' logging), or adjust their timeframe. So the Ride Bike series that I mentioned before can occur as in the past, with maybe a minor change to the wording on the page. And the nice hikes HikingSeal (OP) puts on can occur.

 

So with this clarification of the guidelines, I'm satisfied and remove my objection - and myself from this discussion.

 

*I won't state a name, as I don't have permission to quote them directly.

 

The last thing I want to do is wade into this...meaty thread, but I wanted to clarify the information that the Jester posted, as I am the Lackey to whom he is referring.

 

The hike/bike ride/moving activity can be part of/focus of the event, but there MUST be at least 30 minutes during which the event is scheduled to be at the posted coordinates. This provides people of all abilities to gather to socialize - the primary focus of all events listed on Geocaching.com - and feel welcome. The event host is expected to be present during that time, but the attendees are not required to stay for the entirety, nor are they required to participate in the secondary activity in order to log a find.

 

So, sort of like the paddle events that I host and described waaaaaaay back on pages x, y & z (heck, I ain't wading through all 15 pages to find them).

Link to comment

 

The hike/bike ride/moving activity can be part of/focus of the event, but there MUST be at least 30 minutes during which the event is scheduled to be at the posted coordinates. This provides people of all abilities to gather to socialize - the primary focus of all events listed on Geocaching.com - and feel welcome. The event host is expected to be present during that time, but the attendees are not required to stay for the entirety, nor are they required to participate in the secondary activity in order to log a find.

 

Thanks for letting us know that you have been the lackey The Jester referred to.

 

The above raises two questions

 

(1) If an event has to allow people of all abilities to gather, all events would need to take place at handicapped accessible places. So no events on a lake, mountain summit, no events in not wheelchair accessible restaurant etc. Do you really mean this in that way?

 

(2) Can the event move away from the posted coordinates after the period of 30 minutes? So can the meet and greet take part from 9:00 to 9:30, but 12:00 being given as end time of the event?

 

The answer from appeals appears to imply that the whole event has to take place at the posted coordinates or at least someone has to be present there.

It appeared that a hike cannot be part of an event on gc.com, but just be mentioned in the listing.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...