Jump to content

Event consultation


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Having read and tried to sieve out the various points and views of each of the posters both on FB and the forums surely there needs to be a re-appraisal of the original decision. Can the reviewers not proactively reconsider the position, consult with some of our more prolific event setters and maybe negotiate a consensual set of alternative guidelines to solve this issue. Maybe someone needs to be the bigger person!

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone. Will we review the actual values we've chosen? That may indeed happen. We will try it out now and see how it works. If it does transpire it's not working we may well review it. I cannot say if or when that will happen. It may be that it won't need changing.

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone. Will we review the actual values we've chosen? That may indeed happen. We will try it out now and see how it works. If it does transpire it's not working we may well review it. I cannot say if or when that will happen. It may be that it won't need changing.

 

Thanks Chris. That's the first indication I have seen that the reviewers might consider the communities wishes on this issue.

 

Philip

Link to comment

I suppose the event setting populous really need

to carry on setting their events in line with their requirements and reporting situations where the guidelines impinge on common sense/enjoyment/the wishes of members. You seem to suggest that the position remains fluid and some amendments could be made and in the meantime event setters should carry on presenting their ideas and if they fall foul of the changes then some genuine, open consultation could be taken forward.

This seems positive to me but I think we should welcome EOs that wish to discuss specific cases where some open dialogue could fine tune these guidelines.

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone. Will we review the actual values we've chosen? That may indeed happen. We will try it out now and see how it works. If it does transpire it's not working we may well review it. I cannot say if or when that will happen. It may be that it won't need changing.

 

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense. We as cachers only want to enjoy our hobby!

Link to comment

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

 

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience.

Link to comment

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

 

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience.

As I said, it is some reviewers. Some are really helpful but some are just bloody minded. You must be lucky where you live.

Link to comment

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

 

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience.

As I said, it is some reviewers. Some are really helpful but some are just bloody minded. You must be lucky where you live.

 

Even if we accept that as true - is it a factor in the topic at hand?

 

From what little I've heard/read the guideline changes / clarifications relating to events arose from consultation between all UK reviewers collectively with the involvement of a Groundspeak lackey so, while what they came up with might not suit some of us, it seems unfair to attribute it to the bloody-mindedness of select individuals.

Link to comment

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

 

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience.

As I said, it is some reviewers. Some are really helpful but some are just bloody minded. You must be lucky where you live.

 

Even if we accept that as true - is it a factor in the topic at hand?

 

From what little I've heard/read the guideline changes / clarifications relating to events arose from consultation between all UK reviewers collectively with the involvement of a Groundspeak lackey so, while what they came up with might not suit some of us, it seems unfair to attribute it to the bloody-mindedness of select individuals.

 

Because it is the 'bloody mindedness' of those individuals who take it to the limit and if you are in their 'area' it can make life hell with events and caches.

Link to comment

Because it is the 'bloody mindedness' of those individuals who take it to the limit and if you are in their 'area' it can make life hell with events and caches.

 

Bloody mindedness in my experience tends to be a two way street.

 

What we need to remember is that:

 

1. When it suits them, people expect consistent practices between reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

2. When it suits them, people expect latitude and special treatment from reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

 

The problem with that of course is that you can't have both.

 

In my experience, reviewers tend to grant what leeway they can whilst still complying as closely as possible with the guidelines and also avoiding guideline creep.

 

Sadly, there are often leeway increments which fall outside the acceptable range / beyond a reviewer's comfort zone so the decision isn't what the proposer was hoping for.

 

One possible response is to accept when no means no and go do something more useful.

 

Another possible response is to brand that reviewer as bloody minded.

 

This second response does little to foster good relations, I expect.

Link to comment

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

 

Despite not always agreeing with reviewers and despite more than once ending up not being able to do something as I had originally planned - what you describe has never been my experience.

As I said, it is some reviewers. Some are really helpful but some are just bloody minded. You must be lucky where you live.

Have you got any specific situations, regarding events, when the application of the formalised guidelines spoiled or caused an event to be barred?

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone. Will we review the actual values we've chosen? That may indeed happen. We will try it out now and see how it works. If it does transpire it's not working we may well review it. I cannot say if or when that will happen. It may be that it won't need changing.

It may be that some people have already decided not to arrange events because of the new rules (the guidelines were presented as rules, remember). So it might seem that there isn't a problem from your point of view, but the damage may already have been done.

 

The question I never saw answered in the thread where we were allowed to discuss this for a while (until it was summarily locked for no good reason - no wonder the forums have died in favour of Facebook!) was what the actual problem is that led to these heavy new restrictions.

 

What I mean is, I intend to go to a couple of events later this year. I noticed that there are two in the same area, just a few miles apart, one at lunchtime and the other in the evening. It seems like a nice idea to take in both of them as I'm in the area all day anyway.

 

From what I've deduced from the evasive comments from reviewers, this is the sort of thing that they're wanting to stamp on with a big heavy boot. What they never explain is why this is such a big problem? Others have had a stab at guessing, but there has been no definitive answer as far as I can see. All I've seen is it's to prevent "event stacking", whatever that means. If there are two events in a day only 10 miles apart, yes it's "event stacking" but my question is to explain what is the actual problem caused by this situation because I simply can't see it. Surely if there's such a carefully-devised new rule it's not hard to explain what problem it's meant to solve, in such a way that we can all see the logic and will therefore be happy to work with?

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

All I've seen is it's to prevent "event stacking", whatever that means. If there are two events in a day only 10 miles apart, yes it's "event stacking"

 

Is that event stacking?

 

If those events are being held for two different target audiences by two different CO's and are completely independent, how are they stacked?

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

 

I felt there was no comparison to the actions of a certain dictator - more a reflection on the "findings" of experts.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

 

I felt there was no comparison to the actions of a certain dictator - more a reflection on the "findings" of experts.

 

Noted.

 

Moving on.

Link to comment

Speculating...

 

Let's say I try and arrange, on the same day, a breakfast, lunch, and evening event. And while events need to be social events and not hiking/finding based, I'm doing this as I'm planning a long geocaching day. So one social event before the start, one where I will be at lunchtime, and one to celebrate at the end. The breakfast and evening events are at the same or similar location. The lunch event is a few miles from the others. On their own, each event has a proper duration and location and individually they meet the guidelines.

 

I expect this would be rejected (before the new guidelines) as it clearly goes against

Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event.

 

Now - consider 2 other scenarios:

 

Scenario 1: As I can't get 3 events published myself, I ask 2 friends (who are going to be with me all day) to arrange the lunch and evening, while I'll arrange breakfast. We don't make any mention on any of the events that they are related in any way.

 

Scenario 2: I arrange a breakfast event. It just so happens that someone else arranges a lunch event, and a third person a evening event on the same day, all in the same area.

 

How does the reviewer tell Scenario 1 from Scenario 2?

 

So - my speculation - is that the new guidelines are to stop things like Scenario 1. And the reviewers would like to have clear guidelines rather than have to make difficult judgments about the intent of the events. A consequence of this is independent events which just happen to be near each other in place and time (Scenario 2) are also impacted. (Though in reality, how often will examples of Scenario 2 happen?).

 

Again, just speculation. But this seems logical to me.

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

Speculating...

 

So - my speculation - is that the new guidelines are to stop things like Scenario 1. And the reviewers would like to have clear guidelines rather than have to make difficult judgments about the intent of the events. A consequence of this is independent events which just happen to be near each other in place and time (Scenario 2) are also impacted. (Though in reality, how often will examples of Scenario 2 happen?).

 

Again, just speculation. But this seems logical to me.

 

I agree with your logic :)

 

And following on from that logic, it makes sense that distance and time have to be the objective parameters/selection criteria used.

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone.

 

As has been mentioned before, most parts of the global guidelines are formulated in a milder way (e.g. should, might etc) the new UK rules are formulated as hard rules.

 

If I read "are published only if ....." I would not even dare to submit something for which this condition is not fulfilled. If the new rules are meant less strictly, I suggest to reformulate them to give everyone the same fair chance. As a reviewer likewise I would not dare to publish a cache not meeting the only if condition. I actually expect an only if condition to be executed that way - otherwise it should not be formulated in that way.

 

Many of the issues brought do not have in mind to criticize the reviewers and their work. A lot of constructive feedback about confusions and potential problems with the new rules has been provided here and has not been adressed.

Link to comment

We do give latitude with guidelines (we always have). The guidelines are not as people seem to believe, set in stone.

 

As has been mentioned before, most parts of the global guidelines are formulated in a milder way (e.g. should, might etc) the new UK rules are formulated as hard rules.

 

If I read "are published only if ....." I would not even dare to submit something for which this condition is not fulfilled. If the new rules are meant less strictly, I suggest to reformulate them to give everyone the same fair chance. As a reviewer likewise I would not dare to publish a cache not meeting the only if condition. I actually expect an only if condition to be executed that way - otherwise it should not be formulated in that way.

 

Many of the issues brought do not have in mind to criticize the reviewers and their work. A lot of constructive feedback about confusions and potential problems with the new rules has been provided here and has not been adressed.

 

I refer you back to this post

Link to comment

Scenario 2: I arrange a breakfast event. It just so happens that someone else arranges a lunch event, and a third person a evening event on the same day, all in the same area.

 

How does the reviewer tell Scenario 1 from Scenario 2?

 

If all these events address the same or a very similar target audience, they can be treated in the same manner and both rejected if one wants to.

 

If it is evident that different audiences are addressed (e.g. one event in a pub and one up on a mountain or one in a pub and one at an island in a lake only reachable by paddle boats the attendants need to bring themselves)

this should be taken into account. It does not suffice to take into account only time and distance.

 

While hiking/paddling cannot be part of the event, it still can be that the event location is far from trivial to reach.

 

Also suppose there is an event with the motivation to discuss solving difficult puzzle caches. While of course everyone can attend and log an attended by just quickly paying a visit of 5 minutes and then walking off when not interested at all in such a topic, this is not what I see as an enjoyable experience. The same is true for a pub quiz event when someone hates such activities. No one is hurt if such events have a nearby event with a different target audience.

Link to comment

It does not suffice to take into account only time and distance.

 

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally and save them being branded bloody minded off the back of individual cases where proposers are incensed and classe themselves as victimised by the reviewer's decision.

 

Please be succinct.

Link to comment

 

What we need to remember is that:

 

1. When it suits them, people expect consistent practices between reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

2. When it suits them, people expect latitude and special treatment from reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

 

The problem with that of course is that you can't have both.

 

 

Very true.

 

Not so much in this UK forum, but on the general Geocaching Topics one, you see lots of angst in posts about lack of consistency. I've also learned from that forum that there exists documented "reviewers guidance" that we don't see. And people don't like that there are "hidden guidelines".

 

Whatever one thinks of the UK reviewers, they seem to strive for consistency at least in the UK (and in line with global guidelines). And when they agree some specific detail of how they will interpret the guidelines, they share them publicly. That seems to be a good thing. That doesn't mean one can't argue about the details of the guidelines, and if they could be improved.

 

My fear is that the backlash that the reviewers are getting over this may make them less willing to share their local guidelines in future. They could have agreed these internally and privately; and just quoted the global guideline to which they relate. I would hate to see that happen.

Link to comment

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally

 

If that should be reached at a 100% level, then the reviewers always would need to act as something is written in stone which (fortunately) is not how they work.

 

 

Please be succinct.

 

One e.g. could add something like "unless the events are clearly addressing different audiences" - then one could still reject cases where it's questionable whether they address different audiences but

allow officially cases like the ones I mentioned above. I guess that it should be pretty obvious that a T=1* event and a T=4* event (which both are properly rated) are clearly addressing different audiences.

 

Moreover, unless Groundspeak does away with souvenirs for events at certain days, different rules should apply. It does not make sense if cachers get in a competition who is the first to submit an event.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

 

I felt there was no comparison to the actions of a certain dictator - more a reflection on the "findings" of experts.

Exactly. Perhaps the person who locked the thread didn't read Paul's post correctly but it was no "Godwin's Law" post. To me it came over as an excuse to close down a discussion that was proving awkward for reviewers to respond to. Paul's example was merely a case where experts had been proved spectacularly wrong.

Link to comment

 

Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event.

I would have no argument against this as a guideline. But the UK rules address a quite different problem, or so it seems, for which there is no public Groundspeak guideline. Clearly they are not saying that an event that has been artifically split up will have to be merged again (which sounds reasonable, if a bit over the top). They are saying that independent events on the same day will not be allowed ever, even if they are spread quite widely. My question was about what problem this is meant to solve.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment
My fear is that the backlash that the reviewers are getting over this may make them less willing to share their local guidelines in future. They could have agreed these internally and privately; and just quoted the global guideline to which they relate. I would hate to see that happen.

+1

We've seen that already here, with Lackys mostly.

A Lacky would come into the forums to explain something on a rant thread, or say they're "working on that fix at this time".

A bunch pile on them, often muttering about their cache finds or date joined, as if that has anything to do with their ability to fix the problem everyone was complaining about.

After a dozen more irate, rude questions on things not related to the thread, the Lacky's finally had enough.

- Months later, one of the same crackpots starts a thread about why don't they ever hear from Lackys.

Sheesh...

Link to comment

 

What we need to remember is that:

 

1. When it suits them, people expect consistent practices between reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

2. When it suits them, people expect latitude and special treatment from reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

 

The problem with that of course is that you can't have both.

 

 

Very true.

 

Not so much in this UK forum, but on the general Geocaching Topics one, you see lots of angst in posts about lack of consistency. I've also learned from that forum that there exists documented "reviewers guidance" that we don't see. And people don't like that there are "hidden guidelines".

 

Correct - and people also don't like that the guidelines that are visible are as lengthy and complex as they are - so what to do?

 

My view is that the reviewer guidelines are for the reviewer's guidance, underpin the higher level guidelines with more detailed and more specific decision criteria and not something we need to see.

 

Whatever one thinks of the UK reviewers, they seem to strive for consistency at least in the UK (and in line with global guidelines). And when they agree some specific detail of how they will interpret the guidelines, they share them publicly. That seems to be a good thing. That doesn't mean one can't argue about discuss the details of the guidelines, and if they could be improved.

 

Hopefully you'll forgive my small alteration to your words :)

 

My fear is that the backlash that the reviewers are getting over this may make them less willing to share their local guidelines in future. They could have agreed these internally and privately; and just quoted the global guideline to which they relate. I would hate to see that happen.

 

Me too. We've already seen on these forums the amount of dialogue with Grounspeak dwindle over time in the face of flaming torch and pitchfork style treatment from the disgruntled and that can only be a negative thing.

Link to comment

They are saying that independent events on the same day will not be allowed ever, even if they are spread quite widely. My question was about what problem this is meant to solve.

 

We would need a UK reviewer to answer.

 

I speculated about this in post #19. In short, the new UK guidelines remove the need to make a judgement if events are independent or not.

 

But they may have different reasons.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

 

I felt there was no comparison to the actions of a certain dictator - more a reflection on the "findings" of experts.

Exactly. Perhaps the person who locked the thread didn't read Paul's post correctly but it was no "Godwin's Law" post. To me it came over as an excuse to close down a discussion that was proving awkward for reviewers to respond to. Paul's example was merely a case where experts had been proved spectacularly wrong.

 

Do you think bringing that into the thread added anything of any value?

 

*edit to fix typo

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally

 

If that should be reached at a 100% level, then the reviewers always would need to act as something is written in stone which (fortunately) is not how they work.

 

In the face of continued adversity and claims of mistreatment of individuals, they may need to start working that way. At least then everyone would be treated equally.

 

Please be succinct.

 

One e.g. could add something like "unless the events are clearly addressing different audiences" - then one could still reject cases where it's questionable whether they address different audiences but allow officially cases like the ones I mentioned above.

 

I think you've described what has been happening up until now - albeit without being written down - and what gives rise to people claiming to have been singled out for unfair special treatment.

 

So that won't fix the problem.

 

Got anything else?

 

Edit to add: It looks to me that you are volunteering to be the arbiter of which events should be classed as trustworthy and which should be classed as questionable. If you're prepared to do that on a voluntary basis and deal with the correspondence that's certain to arise - you may have yourself a job :D

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment

I think you've described what has been happening up until now - albeit without being written down - and what gives rise to people claiming to have been singled out for unfair special treatment.

 

Do you have any evidence that this happened often in the UK when it came to events submitted for the same day?

Why should that be a UK-specific problem?

 

Who really loses if in the case of doubt an event gets rather published than rejected?

 

I still cannot stop thinking that some reviewers might be among those who mind if another event gets published near their own event which they intend to offer as an exclusive one. Maybe I'm wrong and this does not play a role at all.

 

What's unfortunate is that none of the reviewers talks about the background. It would be easier to accept the suggested new rules and if possible make constructive suggestions how the same goal could be reached with a less strict set of rules. So far we do not know what has been the actual problem.

Link to comment

I think you've described what has been happening up until now - albeit without being written down - and what gives rise to people claiming to have been singled out for unfair special treatment.

 

Do you have any evidence that this happened often in the UK when it came to events submitted for the same day?

Why should that be a UK-specific problem?

 

I don't. Presumably you have evidence though that it doesn't happen - or why would you waste time asking the question?

 

Let me remind you of your mission:

 

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally

 

Who really loses if in the case of doubt an event gets rather published than rejected?

 

That's not what we are discussing. Please let's not stray off on tangents - that's what leads to long, rambling, tedious threads that achieve nothing of use to anyone and get locked by a mod or curl up and die a pitiful death having consumed more brain cells than they ever deserved.

 

I still cannot stop thinking that some reviewers might be among those who mind if another event gets published near their own event which they intend to offer as an exclusive one. Maybe I'm wrong and this does not play a role at all.

 

Another tangent - let's try to avoid them.

 

What's unfortunate is that none of the reviewers talks about the background. It would be easier to accept the suggested new rules and if possible make constructive suggestions how the same goal could be reached with a less strict set of rules. So far we do not know what has been the actual problem.

 

It would also be easier for people to nit-pick ad-infinitum and turn this thread into a long, rambling, tedious one that achieves nothing of use to anyone and either gets locked by a mod or curls up and dies a pitiful death (and so on, yadda, yadda, yadda).

 

Your mission - rather then investing your energy yet again in finding problems, please suggest a workable solution:

 

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally
Link to comment

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions. I think that one of the only scenarios that might occasionally fall foul of the guidelines is where there may be two completely unrelated events looking to be set by different EOs which are date/time specific and say 15 miles apart. If it is obvious to the reviewer that this is just coincidence and the EOs explain the personal relevance of the date I wonder if one of the Reviewers would be bold enough to state that they would probably allow both? I won't hold my breath.

Link to comment

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions.

 

Tend to agree although I do wonder if an either/or criteria selection might be fairer?

 

By that I mean limit events either on time or distance - but not both, or at least not at the values currently settled on - I think they are a smidge too high.

Link to comment

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions.

 

This solution then however is unfair to those who have a correct understandig of "only if" which allows for no exception, regardless of how special the case might be. So such a scenario then only could happen when two events are submitted before at least one of them got published.

 

I see no reason however if there is a lunch event not to have a completely unrelated event in the evening even when it is only 5 miles away and not 15.

Link to comment

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally

 

As I do not yet see that there is a problem with publishing all events that meet the global event guidelines, it's hard to make a specific suggestion.

Link to comment

Then please suggest criteria which will provide reviewers with a framework in which they can arrive at uniform, consistent decisions which treat everyone equally

 

As I do not yet see that there is a problem with publishing all events that meet the global event guidelines, it's hard to make a specific suggestion.

 

Ah - so all you can do is find fault.

 

Thought so.

 

Same-old same-old.

Link to comment

Ah - so all you can do is find fault.

 

 

No I'm asking questions that could help me and others to understand what's the problem that motivated special UK event guidelines.

Before one can suggest potential solution approaches, one needs to understand what the problem with using the global event rules is.

There are far from reviewers in the US and they do not need such rules. So it's natural to ask what makes the Uk special when it comes to events. Maybe you have some thoughts on that issue that you can share.

Link to comment

I've nothing to add at this stage. I just wanted to check if I'd been banned or blocked from these forums for mentioning- anything. Seems OK. Cheers. Happy caching ?

 

For what it is worth Paul it seemed you were making a genuine and positive suggestion to mediate the discussion/dispute and I felt using your post to lock the thread ill-judged & linking it in to Godwin's Law quite unnecessarily offensive.

 

Had the invocation of Godwin's law not taken place in the first place the thread wouldn't have been locked.

 

I felt there was no comparison to the actions of a certain dictator - more a reflection on the "findings" of experts.

 

Noted.

 

Moving on.

I've an opinion on this, but on *this* forum I'll let others guess what it is & form their own as to the reasons for that thread being snuffed.

Also, thank you David :)

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

 

Do you think bringing that into the thread added anything of any value?

 

*edit to fix typo

It seemed like a good example to me, as it received a lot of publicity at the time and highlighted that "experts" are not infallible.

 

But what value did it add to the process?

It gave a great excuse/reason to lock a thread. That's value, of sorts.

Also, thank you Happy Humphrey :)

Link to comment

So it's natural to ask what makes the Uk special when it comes to events. Maybe you have some thoughts on that issue that you can share.

 

No - I've no special insight to offer in that regard in connection with the guidelines and wild speculation tends to be fruitless and even corrosive - as you've already demonstrated - so that's something that is probably best avoided.

 

I still cannot stop thinking that some reviewers might be among those who mind if another event gets published near their own event which they intend to offer as an exclusive one. Maybe I'm wrong and this does not play a role at all.

Link to comment

Firstly, thank you to those who have taken the time to participate in this discussion.

 

I'd like to address some of the points raised. I am a UK Reviewer, I was at the meeting where the Team and a Lackey discussed this issue.

 

This is very difficult issue to explain and give examples without breaching confidentiality - however, suffice it to say that the Feedback we had from Groundspeak was that Events were increasingly being submitted that could be interpreted as being less than social.

 

Recent changes to the Event Guidelines - where Flashmobs were being submitted that lasted 5 minutes or less - that stated that Events must be at least a Minimum duration of 30 minutes - has resulted in an increase of Events being submitted that last for Only 30 minutes.

 

The problem isn't a unique problem to the UK. What may make us unique is that we have a very tight knit Team who wish to work cohesively to try to ensure best practise. The solution was to have a UK applicable framework for all of us to work within.

 

Nadiagoescaching, on 17 June 2016 - 01:05 AM, said:

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

Team Microdot

 

What we need to remember is that:

 

1. When it suits them, people expect consistent practices between reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

2. When it suits them, people expect latitude and special treatment from reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

 

The problem with that of course is that you can't have both.

 

These new additions of 20 miles OR 10 hours were to clarify a specific criteria of time or distance which would hopefully result in a more consistently applied guideline.

 

redsox_mark

 

Speculating...

 

How does the reviewer tell Scenario 1 from Scenario 2?

 

So - my speculation - is that the new guidelines are to stop things like Scenario 1. And the reviewers would like to have clear guidelines rather than have to make difficult judgments about the intent of the events. A consequence of this is independent events which just happen to be near each other in place and time (Scenario 2) are also impacted. (Though in reality, how often will examples of Scenario 2 happen?).

 

Again, just speculation. But this seems logical to me.

 

From Post 19 - this is indeed why the criteria were introduced.

 

Team Microdot

 

Correct - and people also don't like that the guidelines that are visible are as lengthy and complex as they are - so what to do?

 

My view is that the reviewer guidelines are for the reviewer's guidance, underpin the higher level guidelines with more detailed and more specific decision criteria and not something we need to see.

 

But on this occasion we decided to share them nationally to avoid the first few refusals being taken personally.

 

Happy Humphrey

 

They are saying that independent events on the same day will not be allowed ever, even if they are spread quite widely.

 

No, we're saying that the independent events will be allowed on the same day, as long as they are - according to the new additions - at least 20 miles / 10 hours apart.

 

Legochugglers

 

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions. I think that one of the only scenarios that might occasionally fall foul of the guidelines is where there may be two completely unrelated events looking to be set by different EOs which are date/time specific and say 15 miles apart. If it is obvious to the reviewer that this is just coincidence and the EOs explain the personal relevance of the date I wonder if one of the Reviewers would be bold enough to state that they would probably allow both? I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm a bold Reviewer. I would probably publish both of the Events as described above.

 

Team Microdot

 

View PostLegochugglers, on 17 June 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions.

 

Tend to agree although I do wonder if an either/or criteria selection might be fairer?

 

By that I mean limit events either on time or distance - but not both, or at least not at the values currently settled on - I think they are a smidge too high.

 

The limits are either 20 miles - for events happening at the same time

or 10 HOURS for events in the same area.

 

As already confirmed by Graculus in his post 2, these values may be reconsidered at a later date.

Link to comment

Firstly, thank you to those who have taken the time to participate in this discussion.

 

I'd like to address some of the points raised. I am a UK Reviewer, I was at the meeting where the Team and a Lackey discussed this issue.

 

This is very difficult issue to explain and give examples without breaching confidentiality - however, suffice it to say that the Feedback we had from Groundspeak was that Events were increasingly being submitted that could be interpreted as being less than social.

 

Recent changes to the Event Guidelines - where Flashmobs were being submitted that lasted 5 minutes or less - that stated that Events must be at least a Minimum duration of 30 minutes - has resulted in an increase of Events being submitted that last for Only 30 minutes.

 

The problem isn't a unique problem to the UK. What may make us unique is that we have a very tight knit Team who wish to work cohesively to try to ensure best practise. The solution was to have a UK applicable framework for all of us to work within.

 

Nadiagoescaching, on 17 June 2016 - 01:05 AM, said:

With all respect, in reply to this comment, some reviewers take these 'guidelines' as rules and are very stubborn and will not listen to any common sense.

Team Microdot

 

What we need to remember is that:

 

1. When it suits them, people expect consistent practices between reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

2. When it suits them, people expect latitude and special treatment from reviewers related to the guidelines in force at the time

 

The problem with that of course is that you can't have both.

 

These new additions of 20 miles OR 10 hours were to clarify a specific criteria of time or distance which would hopefully result in a more consistently applied guideline.

 

redsox_mark

 

Speculating...

 

How does the reviewer tell Scenario 1 from Scenario 2?

 

So - my speculation - is that the new guidelines are to stop things like Scenario 1. And the reviewers would like to have clear guidelines rather than have to make difficult judgments about the intent of the events. A consequence of this is independent events which just happen to be near each other in place and time (Scenario 2) are also impacted. (Though in reality, how often will examples of Scenario 2 happen?).

 

Again, just speculation. But this seems logical to me.

 

From Post 19 - this is indeed why the criteria were introduced.

 

Team Microdot

 

Correct - and people also don't like that the guidelines that are visible are as lengthy and complex as they are - so what to do?

 

My view is that the reviewer guidelines are for the reviewer's guidance, underpin the higher level guidelines with more detailed and more specific decision criteria and not something we need to see.

 

But on this occasion we decided to share them nationally to avoid the first few refusals being taken personally.

 

Happy Humphrey

 

They are saying that independent events on the same day will not be allowed ever, even if they are spread quite widely.

 

No, we're saying that the independent events will be allowed on the same day, as long as they are - according to the new additions - at least 20 miles / 10 hours apart.

 

Legochugglers

 

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions. I think that one of the only scenarios that might occasionally fall foul of the guidelines is where there may be two completely unrelated events looking to be set by different EOs which are date/time specific and say 15 miles apart. If it is obvious to the reviewer that this is just coincidence and the EOs explain the personal relevance of the date I wonder if one of the Reviewers would be bold enough to state that they would probably allow both? I won't hold my breath.

 

I'm a bold Reviewer. I would probably publish both of the Events as described above.

 

Team Microdot

 

View PostLegochugglers, on 17 June 2016 - 06:59 AM, said:

The more I read into this the more convinced I am that the reviewers have come up with a workable solution. It is probably much better to set out a stringent set of guidelines and then treat each case on its merits and make exceptions where necessary than to have woolly arrangements and be constantly interpreting issues and contradictions.

 

Tend to agree although I do wonder if an either/or criteria selection might be fairer?

 

By that I mean limit events either on time or distance - but not both, or at least not at the values currently settled on - I think they are a smidge too high.

 

The limits are either 20 miles - for events happening at the same time

or 10 HOURS for events in the same area.

 

As already confirmed by Graculus in his post 2, these values may be reconsidered at a later date.

Excellent. Your confirmation that the scenario I set out would be published should put a lot of minds at rest.

Link to comment

Thank you La Lunatica. With your post in mind, I'd like to offer the following revised edition of the original statement, based on everything I've read since and a degree of wishful thinking:

 

The UK reviewing team recently had a meeting where several topics were discussed. This has resulted in changes to various matters of cache placement and events in the UK. Because secret guidelines are a bad thing, we're letting you know the changes are as follows:

 

Placing of caches in Culverts, Mines, Adits, Caves and Underground Quarries.

There have been issues with disturbing bats which frequently roost in some of these locations. It was decided there would be no restrictions on placing caches in these locations, but to avoid any issues, cache owners would be asked to show they have permission from the relevant landowner for both physical and virtual stages of any cache using such locations.

Please note that caches in culverts under roads managed by Highways England and in culverts under railway lines (Network Rail) will not be allowed. Both these organisations have made this request and it's explained in the UK Geocaching Polices Wiki: Highways England - Network Rail. This change to the guideline is immediate, because you already had permission, right?

 

Event stacking.

This phrase refers to holding multiple events that are close to each other and at similar times. Events are social gatherings of geocachers and having too many too close to each other diminishes their value to the community, you could argue. Events are not just an excuse to get a 'smiley', even at a HQ-approved 30-mins long. In the future, if an event is submitted and another event is either already published or also waiting review and they are too close to each other then the following guidance will apply:

 

Events will usually be published within a similar time period only if they are more than 20 miles apart (as the crow flies), except where a significant physical barrier - such as the Bristol Channel - divides them. Common sense and flexibility will be applied, especially when the events' target audiences are significantly different. This rule comes into play in mid September, to reflect that events are already being planned under the old guidelines.

 

Events closer to each other than 20 miles will only be published if the end time of the first is more 10 hours before the start time of the next, except when there's a clear reason not to apply this guideline, such as the target audiences for the events are significantly different. A family-friendly BBQ will attract different interested parties than an event on a mountain-top. We aim to accommodate both, when that will not cause likely conflict between event hosts. The distance and time restrictions will be carefully considered and reviewed in six months time to see if they've caused unexpected problems.

 

In London which is a popular tourist destination and where many events get submitted it was decided the distance would be a 3 mile circle around Trafalgar Square rather than 20 miles. The time restriction of 10 hours will still apply. Anywhere else in London the 20 mile/10 hour guidance will apply, but we'll keep an eye on the size of this area and how many events it forces us to reject. Same case for the rest of the UK. We're not anti-fun, after all, and will try to publish every event we're reasonably able to.

 

'Camping' events

Camping is a very popular activity among geocachers and long weekend camping trips particularly so. It’s becoming common to have several geocaching events during these 2 or 3 days. This doesn't diminish the value of events as social gatherings, even if it's usually the same people attending each time... But the event guidelines say this:

 

"An event is a gathering of geocachers, facilitating the social aspect of geocaching. It is organized by geocachers and is open to other geocachers and those interested in learning about the game. It takes place at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes. Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event."

 

Therefore in the future only one event will be allowed during a camping "long weekend", unless its organised by other people, without connection and intended to attract a different audience, and isn't too close, or promoted as part of the weekend and- actually, it gets complicated. Since an event has a set date, the idea of a 'three day event' which also covers events on days either side of it is logically flawed. If people are on site for three days, let them have three events. Make one a CITO to do some extra good. No harm done. Other rules apply to Megas and CITOs (not on Mega days) anyway. All events must be open to all, and it's up to event hosts to organise events which have a broad appeal - to campers and non-campers alike.

 

This main event must be on a specific day with a start and finish time. If the camp site is closed to visitors; that is you can only get on the camp site if you are camping, then this event must be open to all geocachers so needs to be held off the camp site, even if only as a 30-minute 'nod' to the rules.

 

Paul

Simply Paul

Not a volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

 

The orignial post:

The UK reviewing team recently had a meeting where several topics were discussed. This has resulted in changes to various matters of cache placement and events in the UK as follows:

 

Placing of caches in Culverts, Mines, Adits, Caves and Underground Quarries.

There have been issues with disturbing bats which frequently roost in some of these locations. It was decided there would be no restrictions on placing caches in these locations but to avoid any issues cache owners would be asked to show they have permission from the relevant landowner.

Please note that caches in culverts under roads managed by Highways England and in culverts under railway lines (Network Rail) will not be allowed. Both these organisations have made this request and it's explained in the UK Geocaching Polices Wiki: Highways England - Network Rail.

 

Event stacking

This phrase refers to holding multiple events that are close to each other or at similar times. Events are social gatherings of geocachers and having too many too close to each other diminishes their value to the community. Events are not just an excuse to get a 'smiley'. In the future, if an event is submitted and another event is either already published or also waiting review and they are too close to each other then the following guidance will apply:

Events will be published within a similar time period only if they are more than 20 miles apart (as the crow flies). Events closer to each other than 20 miles will only be published if the end time of the first is more 10 hours before the start time of the next. In London which is a popular tourist destination and where many events get submitted it was decided the distance would be a 3 mile circle around Trafalgar Square rather than 20 miles. The time restriction of 10 hours will still apply. Anywhere else in London the 20 mile/10 hour guideance will apply.

 

Camping events

Camping is a very popular activity among geocachers and long weekend camping trips particularly so. It’s becoming common to have a lot of geocaching events during these 2 or 3 days. This does diminish the value of events as social gatherings as it's usually the same people attending each time. The event guidelines say this:

 

An event is a gathering of geocachers, facilitating the social aspect of geocaching. It is organized by geocachers and is open to other geocachers and those interested in learning about the game. It takes place at the posted coordinates, includes start and end times, and lasts at least 30 minutes. Events with several elements, a sequence of events, or events that are near the same time or location and intended for the same audience should be submitted as a single event.

 

Therefore in the future only one event will be allowed during a camping "long weekend". This event must be on a specific day with a start and finish time. If the camp site is closed to visitors; that is you can only get on the camp site if you are camping then this event must be open to all geocachers so needs to be held off the camp site.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 7
×
×
  • Create New...