Jump to content

Event consultation


Followers 7

Recommended Posts

 

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.

 

Thanks for trying to explain things a little better. Really the main problem has been that the rules were announced with poor wording and then not explained very well, rather than that they were necessarily bad rules.

 

Just to clarify - when I said "even if they are spread quite widely" I meant "within the framework of 20 miles". There could be a huge distance between events, perhaps even 15 miles, and yet they'd fall foul of this ruling. That's quite a wide spread. As initially presented, the guidelines seemed quite fixed as well, with little (if any) leeway hinted at. Perhaps things have changed since the furore began.

 

I've never heard of problems being caused by events being "less than social". If you can't give any examples, not even theoretical ones, then I guess that this will have to remain a mystery. Obviously Flashmob events will be very short by their nature but it's normally pretty clear if the event is of this type so I don't imagine that this is a problem. Anyway, Groundspeak guidelines already cover this aspect.

 

It seems a uniquely UK problem, as there are more Groundspeak guidelines in this area but which don't seem to be related to this problem, and they don't mention the problem that is being being addressed in the UK. This seems to be the only guideline that might be close;

 

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.

 

...but clearly this is aimed at events that have been artificially split up and should really be one event with several waypoints for the activities within. Common sense would put "near the same time or location" as being an indication that the events are happening during the main event timeframe and pretty much on the same site (in the nearby village, for instance, or in another part of the same town). Quite a different kettle of fish from the UK problem.

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.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to do this - and to point out where I had misunderstood / misinterpreted :)

Link to comment

I've had a coupe of reports showing concern about the post from La Lunatica and the subsequent post from Simply Paul

 

The concerns are that this appears to show a change from the original announcement and that it could be misleading.

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible. I would hope that people can see that Simply Paul's post was, as he said, a suggested edit and not an official re-write.

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

Yes.

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

 

Obviously it matters to some of us, which is why we are adding our comments.

 

Explanations of the intent behind the words are helpful, thank you La Lunatica (who is always a helpful and fair reviewer in my experience ... and I'll agree with bold to pop her head above the parapet here. Creepy grovel over :D )

 

I'd like to think that the thoughtful analysis of why that initial announcement went down so badly might perhaps inform how any future guideline codicil is worded and presented to us.

 

I think that 20 miles (being of the metric persuasion myself, I'd say 32.18km)is too great a radius.

 

Draw a 32.18km circle around any town in England or Wales and see what it encompasses: I just tried it

with the location of the event after the reviewers meeting (Yaxley in the outskirts of Peterborough) The area is nothing like as densely populated as much of the south east of England, but here are just some of the towns and villages which would have been excluded from having events for 10 hours before or after:

All of Peterborough and its suburbs obviously, then Ailsworth, Marholme, Glinton, Bourne, Thurlby, Spalding, Stamford, Market Deeping, Wandsford, Whittlesey, March, Corby, Oundle, Ramsey, Chateris, Thrapston, Fotheringhay, Raunds, Irthlingborough, Huntingdon, St. Ives and St. Neots.

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

 

Obviously it matters to some of us, which is why we are adding our comments.

 

I meant does it matter whether the words which provide the basic framework of geocaching are named guidelines or rules?

 

Given that they are usually fairly generally worded and given that they are used by human beings who can engage in clarifying dialogue and incorporate discretionary flexibility into the process in accordance with 'common sense' I say it matters not.

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

 

Obviously it matters to some of us, which is why we are adding our comments.

 

I meant does it matter whether the words which provide the basic framework of geocaching are named guidelines or rules?

 

 

Ah well, what matters is that the published wording correctly conveys the intended meaning and at the moment it doesn't. Similarly your question didn't really specify what you wanted answered, hence I answered a different question.

Link to comment

 

All that has been said is that we have come up with these clarifications on the existing guidelines and that as they are still guidelines we are flexible.

 

The problem is that nowhere in the the original post from Chris did it say these were guidelines, and the language used in that post was not the language of a guideline, it was the language of an absolute immutable rule. It's quite possible that this whole furore could have been avoided if the "guidelines" were worded better, and I suggest that they should be rewritten so that anyone reading them for the first time once all this has died down will understand that they are indeed guidelines and not absolute rules.

 

But does it really matter?

 

Obviously it matters to some of us, which is why we are adding our comments.

 

I meant does it matter whether the words which provide the basic framework of geocaching are named guidelines or rules?

 

Given that they are usually fairly generally worded and given that they are used by human beings who can engage in clarifying dialogue and incorporate discretionary flexibility into the process in accordance with 'common sense' I say it matters not.

We were talking about the rules as originally presented, and obviously it mattered a lot that they were presented as rules. They were not "generally worded", and there was no "clarifying dialogue" at all, despite a lot of requests. In fact, I still haven't had any clarification beyond dark hints about why events in adjacent regions are a major headache.

 

So if you named them "guidelines" you'd be quite wrong, and the difference between guidelines and rules is significant.

For example, the Groundspeak guideline on this is presented as a guideline:

 

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.
.

 

This infers that someone submitting several events where clearly they are part of the same meet, are advised that they should be set up as a single event (but don't necessarily havce to be). All deliberately vague and plenty of room for negotiation.

 

The UK reviewers rule that caused consternation was worded as a rule, and was not presented as anything other;

 

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.

Nothing vague about that. It's a rule. So basically, if your event is 19 miles from someone else's on the same day, forget it, it won't be published, so there's no point in even arranging it. That a reviewer has hinted since that tere may be occasions when the rule is relaxed is not particularly useful either if you're setting up an event, as you may not want to risk doing all the hard work only to find that another event has trumped yours. Withe the uncertainty you might not risk it if you've looked up the "guidelines" and see this rule.

Link to comment

 

We were talking about the rules as originally presented, and obviously it mattered a lot that they were presented as rules.

 

To some people. I suspect there'll be plenty of people who couldn't care less. In fact I expect those people will be in the majority.

 

They were not "generally worded", and there was no "clarifying dialogue" at all, despite a lot of requests. In fact, I still haven't had any clarification beyond dark hints about why events in adjacent regions are a major headache.

 

I believe that a confidentiality issue was cited - so I doubt you'll get more detail in that direction.

 

So if you named them "guidelines" you'd be quite wrong, and the difference between guidelines and rules is significant.

 

Much of a muchness with regard to the subject matter if you ask me.

 

All deliberately vague and plenty of room for negotiation.

 

And therein lies the problem - so called negotiation seems to lead too often to conflict and hurt feelings.

 

The UK reviewers rule that caused consternation was worded as a rule, and was not presented as anything other;

 

Consternation? A feeling of anxiety or dismay? Seems a bit dramatic :unsure:

 

It seems to me that people are drawn to geocaching because it is a structured activity

 

That structured activity operates largely within and is steered using a written framework which evolves over time.

 

Whether we call that which is written by Groundspeak et al guidelines or rules, to me, makes very little difference. Generally speaking people work together to achieve reasonably satisfactory results and reasonably satisfactory compromises and things carry on reasonably well within that framework.

Link to comment

So what, if the majority don't care? Obviously the majority don't arrange events, so they are unlikely to be annoyed. You seem to be saying that therefore it doesn't matter. Well, it doesn't matter to me too much, it's just that I posed a couple of questions which could have been answered on day 1 and I'd have gone away.

 

On guidelines, if a guideline is given, you can take note when arranging your event and follow the general idea (such as not splitting it up artificially). If there's a guideline that asks you to check whether there's another event in the same region, giving the reasoning, you might go ahead if you think that it's not going to be a problem, perhaps noting to the reviewer why it's actually OK.

If it's an unexplained rule (as this was presented), you know that it's not worth starting arranging an event if you see that there's another event within range, as it looks like a hard and fast ruling.

For example there is a rule on Commercial events, such that you can't say the the event is to be held in a particular named pub (you have to leave people to work this out from the location). Last time I checked it was being applied vigorously, without exceptions. Why would this one not be?

 

On the "confidentiality issue", obviously the question could still have been answered without naming names (you just give a hypothetical situation).

Link to comment
For example there is a rule on Commercial events, such that you can't say the the event is to be held in a particular named pub (you have to leave people to work this out from the location). Last time I checked it was being applied vigorously, without exceptions.

 

This has no longer been the case for quite a few years now. You can mention the venue and link to a menu but you cannot over promote the food or drinks etc.

Link to comment

We've not had the chance to cache lately so hearing about this perceived rule was quite a shock given that it didn't apparently come from those who are in charge.

 

It seemed to me after reading the posts here there are certain things that are clear:

 

It seems an unpopular decision. Those who decided this rule have lost objectivity.

 

A reviewer is and always has been a person who volunteers their time to the benefit of the wider community and uses local knowledge and a clear understanding of the groundpeak guidlines to help the wider community publish caches and keep the game alive.

 

Where I believe things have gone awry is they have confused position with authority. This is not the action or sentiment of someone who helps. This is the action of a few in a position of trust ... making an I'll informed decision for the wider community based on a minority opinion.

 

Intended or otherwise this is the result. I would say we should vote as this has been punted as a unilateral decision and clearly it is not by their own admission. It was agreed by a few.

 

I would say be wary of agreeing to this especially when it is delivered in such a soothing tone as the sentiment is clear. If it is decided by the same contingent that it has been in error it may be lifted or reconsidered or adapted.

 

In the same way as some external organisations have overeached I would say this was a poorly conceived decision which has been delivered as an edict. I would remind the reviewers you are volunteers only not policy makers. I have no need of a policy maker who takes a minority opinion and fashions a new way of playing a game which seemed previously to be accepted happily by the wider community. Attendance levels of these events is all the proof you require. I do have need of a reviewer who helps me publish caches or events in the time honoured way.

 

Alienating people by overuling their concerns especially when you have not been given authority to do so by us the end user .... has placed you in a very difficult position. Nothing is easier than deferring to popular demand. Especially at this juncture. To continue to stand aloof ... you'll stand alone. And where will this self imposed authority end ... no more micros perhaps .... no teams ... no power trails ... it is a hobby where all may find a corner to explore and taken or leave that which they do not enjoy. And should the community decide as a whole that they do not enjoy an aspect of it, they will vote with their feet.

 

Please rejoin the community as our reviewers do not attempt to lead it you will fail and we will obviously evolve beyond you and migrate. I'd hate that to happen.

 

In short if it ain't broke don't fix it and don't create a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Link to comment

So what, if the majority don't care?

 

Well I guess it suggests that the drama some seem to see arising from this isn't actually such a drama?

 

On guidelines, if a guideline is given, you can take note when arranging your event and follow the general idea (such as not splitting it up artificially). If there's a guideline that asks you to check whether there's another event in the same region, giving the reasoning, you might go ahead if you think that it's not going to be a problem, perhaps noting to the reviewer why it's actually OK.

If it's an unexplained rule (as this was presented), you know that it's not worth starting arranging an event if you see that there's another event within range, as it looks like a hard and fast ruling.

 

As far as I can see, it makes no odds what name is applied to the framework elements - it's still entirely possible to engage in mutually respectful dialogue with a reviewer to see what can be thrashed out within that framework.

 

For example there is a rule on Commercial events, such that you can't say the the event is to be held in a particular named pub (you have to leave people to work this out from the location). Last time I checked it was being applied vigorously, without exceptions.

 

This made me wonder when you last organised an event given, in my very limited experience, this so called rule hasn't been enforced for, crikey - ages! In fact I think that was a couple of years back. Anyway - according to your profile you've organised one event - in 2004, which might explain why you're a little behind.

 

On the "confidentiality issue", obviously the question could still have been answered without naming names (you just give a hypothetical situation).

 

You think so? In the context of this thread were some would have it that the sky is falling? Would it actually be hypothetical? Would everyone accept a hypothetical situation or seek to dismiss it precisely because it was, allegedly, hypothetical?

 

What I reckon this thread would actually benefit from is posts from anyone who has had difficulties because of this change - then at least we'd know if anyone was actually being affected - or not.

Link to comment

 

In short if it ain't broke don't fix it and don't create a solution for a problem that does not exist.

 

La Lunatica's post tries to explain that there is a problem.

 

Feedback we had from Groundspeak was that Events were increasingly being submitted that could be interpreted as being less than social.

 

That says to me that Groundspeak was asking the UK reviewers to fix something. We don't have real examples, though La Lunatica confirmed the general idea in my post 19 is correct. I gave a hypothetical example where I was "playing games" by trying to get 3 events on the same day, maybe just so I could get 3 event smilies. The new guidelines seek to avoid the reviewer to determine who is "playing games".

 

So they got together, along with a representative from Groundspeak, and came up with these new UK guidelines.

 

In general, cachers don't like new guidelines/rules. There is a huge debate whenever Groundspeak changes them. I recall total uproar when Groundspeak update the global event guidelines and added the 30 minute rule. And I understand that as outraged as cachers get everytime Groundspeak changes the guidelines, that having the UK reviewers creating them too causes even more outrage. So by announcing anything, the UK reviewers were going to get a lot of unhappy customers.

 

Now, having said all that.. with any guideline/rule/law, people will find loopholes. Let's say I go to my local pub at the same time every day. I could arrange an event in my favourite pub, everyday for the next 3 months. That is allowed as they are > 10 hour apart. Some days other cachers may attend, but some days I expect I'd be the only attendee. I would expect them to be rejected anyway based on common sense. (And likely worse, I expect my account might be banned).

 

So going full circle, I can see the case for "just use common sense" overall, and we don't need this guideline. But I still see the logic in it, and believe it was created for valid reasons. I'm willing to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt and see how these work out.

Link to comment

It wasn't the point I was making Mark. It doesn't matter that the reviewers decided to do something about it ... it was that they did off their own back without asking first.

 

If and as you say it's an assumption on your part Groundspeak specifically asked for something to be done that should be explained. The fault would then lie with Groundspeak. ... as it is it is the reviewers ...

 

... so my point still stands. Clearly it is an unpopular decision and should be revoked to encourage trust. Placating after the fact with a wishy washy maybe perhaps is just filler. Give people time they'll come around. I find that passive agressive. And as a paying customer .... very unpleasant. It is a political tactic in a consumer environment.

 

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

If I had two beers in my local every night and the landlord said ... well look you know what it could be interpreted that you are being too social I'm cutting you off after one but by all means come back in 10 hours or go to the nearest other pub 20 miles away but you can't go to the one overy the road .... they'd think he was nuts.

 

I think the end user decides what they are happy with not the owner of the business. .. they after all the ones with the cash. And I dadgum well know it isn't the help.

Link to comment

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.

 

 

First, thank you for taking the time to come here and provide helpful explanation and clarifications. The fact that it is not an and condition as time and distance is regarded (as it has been formulated by Graculus) is certainly helpful.

 

As Groundspeak's feedback is regarded, I'm somehow a bit confused as it seems to me that it's Groundspeak's event policy that has led to an increased number of events with a duration of 30 minutes.

When Groundspeak announces a souvenir for event participation, then it's quite natural that this leads to the submission of several short events so that different target groups all get their chance.

NB: I'm not caring about souvenirs and I'm not a fan of short events - that's not the type of event I would miss if they did not exist. I find it strange however that GS asks the reviewers to deal with something which

they create.

 

Apart from the souvenir aspect, there are also other areas where GS motivates shorts events: The first and most important one is that GS does not allow (any longer) events where a hike, boat trip or other activity is part of the event - so the recourse is to have 30 minutes Groundspeak events and handle everything of interest for those events (the moving part) outside of the 30 minutes interval. In other cases events at a fixed location do not lend themselves to be published as GS events (e.g. problems with commercial guideline, entrance fees etc) and then again one is left with the option to submit a 30 minutes placeholder at gc.com and organize the real event outside.

 

Another aspect that adds to the increase of short events is that both due to souvenir events and challenge caches and badges, many cachers wish to attend events abroad and often the only chance for an event that fits their schedule is to publish their own. Typically cachers on travel do not have much time.

 

In my opinion, the new UK event guideline might help to reduce the number of total events, but without making a distinction between short and long - it could easily eliminate two long events that are within 20 miles (and not 10 hours away from each other) and why would you want to achieve that based on Groundspeak's feedback you mentioned? If the events overlap and one has a T=1* rating and the other a T=4* they will typically appeal to different cachers (and moreover many cachers cannot cope with T=4*).

Link to comment

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

Link to comment

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

 

Because they won't get quite so many smilies while they're enjoying all the activities they would have enjoyed anyway?

Link to comment

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

Although I would guess that 1900 of them will be completely unaware of this situation, 50 probably don't care, 40 care but are probably willing to "suck it and see" and 10 think the world has ended.

Link to comment

It wasn't the point I was making Mark. It doesn't matter that the reviewers decided to do something about it ... it was that they did off their own back without asking first.

 

 

But should they need to ask?

 

Keep in mind that the UK reviewers have, for quite some time, been agreeing and documenting UK specific details and interpretations of Groundspeak guidelines. E.g. they have UK specific guidelines about caches on/near schools and playgrounds. I don't recall them asking anyone about that. But I also don't recall them announcing it.

 

I have no vested interest in defending the reviewers. But given their task - which is to enforce Groundspeak guidelines, in a way which is consistent and takes local issues into account - agreeing UK specific details seems a good thing.

 

And I don't think it is really practical to ask. They are reviewing in their spare time. They need to make decisions and move on. Any consultation would result in a whole bunch of input; and then whatever they did someone would accuse them of not listening.

 

I wonder if they would have been better off not making any announcement at all? Just start using their new guidelines.

Link to comment

Because they won't get quite so many smilies while they're enjoying all the activities they would have enjoyed anyway?

 

The smilies aspect does not even occur when there are two independent events that are for different target audiences (for such events being rather close in time rather makes them immune against smilie hunters - asking for a distance of at least 10 hours makes it easier to visit all such events). In many other case the smilies are only a tangent (you seem to like that word) issue.

 

As to "enjoying all the activities they would have enjoyed anyway", that will not be true for everyone. There will be many activities which are not any longer organized/announced via gc.com and then only be known to insiders/cliques. This excludes newer cachers and cachers with no or almost no cacher network.

Link to comment

Because they won't get quite so many smilies while they're enjoying all the activities they would have enjoyed anyway?

 

The smilies aspect does not even occur when there are two independent events that are for different target audiences (for such events being rather close in time rather makes them immune against smilie hunters - asking for a distance of at least 10 hours makes it easier to visit all such events). In many other case the smilies are only a tangent (you seem to like that word) issue.

 

As to "enjoying all the activities they would have enjoyed anyway", that will not be true for everyone. There will be many activities which are not any longer organized/announced via gc.com and then only be known to insiders/cliques. This excludes newer cachers and cachers with no or almost no cacher network.

 

Yes - you're correct - the smilies aspect does not occur when there are two independent events for different target audiences - or at least less so. What you obviously failed to notice though was this:

 

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

 

Or perhaps you did notice it but felt some strange compulsion to quote me out of context and then suggest that I was taking the thread off on some tangent - when clearly that point was raised by someone else entirely - and it's not even a tangent.

 

There's no reason whatsoever why all the side events around a mega cannot be communicated via gc.com - in fact the guidelines specifically suggest that's precisely what should happen - so I've no idea where you get your conspiracy theory from about clandestine side events attended only by members of the same secret geocaching cliques :blink:

 

And then we move onto crysal ball gazing about imagined newer cachers, or imagined cachers who don't know the secret handshake yet that will support their membership of the imaginary cliques that will spring up around mega events which now have secret side events? :laughing:

 

Until now this thread has stayed very tightly focused so did someone flick the massive derailment switch while I wasn't looking? :o

Link to comment

I wonder if they would have been better off not making any announcement at all? Just start using their new guidelines.

 

Very probably.

 

The idea that these 17 individuals who have supposedly made this decision (16 reviewers and a lackey I assume, based on information from this page) shouldn't in turn have some input to the guidelines that they need to work within while 16 of them are working completely for free to support the passtime enjoyed by millions in the UK is frankly an insult to those individuals and I often wonder what keeps them from throwing in the towel and saving themselves the grief.

Link to comment

 

Yes - you're correct - the smilies aspect does not occur when there are two independent events for different target audiences - or at least less so. What you obviously failed to notice though was this:

 

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

 

Or perhaps you did notice it but felt some strange compulsion to quote me out of context and then suggest that I was taking the thread off on some tangent - when clearly that point was raised by someone else entirely - and it's not even a tangent.

 

Maybe I misunderstood MartyBartfast. I thought that he wrote about all event participants and not only side events of a mega event or side events of some other event.

If that was the case, I'm sorry for the confusion caused.

 

 

There's no reason whatsoever why all the side events around a mega cannot be communicated via gc.com - in fact the guidelines specifically suggest that's precisely what should happen - so I've no idea where you get your conspiracy theory from about clandestine side events attended only by members of the same secret geocaching cliques :blink:

 

Again we probably talk about different things. I did not have side events in mind when I wrote my post, but rather events which are not at all connected to each other, just happen to be too close in distance or time to each other.

 

If one gets denied an event, the easiest way is to organize it nevertheless and outside of gc.com. This already happens for event types that are not longer tolerated on gc.com - no crystal ball needed. I do not expect that mega events will end up with less activities due to the new guidelines.

Link to comment

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

Well I think you are viewing the facts in a way that slightly angles the discussion on your favour lol. Another way it could be interpreted is .... thousands have had their choices removed ... should they wish to choose to use the old way. As for unlikely ... who can tell. Any conjecture on that front would certainly be just that conjecture.

Link to comment

It wasn't the point I was making Mark. It doesn't matter that the reviewers decided to do something about it ... it was that they did off their own back without asking first.

 

 

But should they need to ask?

 

Keep in mind that the UK reviewers have, for quite some time, been agreeing and documenting UK specific details and interpretations of Groundspeak guidelines. E.g. they have UK specific guidelines about caches on/near schools and playgrounds. I don't recall them asking anyone about that. But I also don't recall them announcing it.

 

I have no vested interest in defending the reviewers. But given their task - which is to enforce Groundspeak guidelines, in a way which is consistent and takes local issues into account - agreeing UK specific details seems a good thing.

 

And I don't think it is really practical to ask. They are reviewing in their spare time. They need to make decisions and move on. Any consultation would result in a whole bunch of input; and then whatever they did someone would accuse them of not listening.

 

I wonder if they would have been better off not making any announcement at all? Just start using their new guidelines.

 

I agree Mark ... as you have implied perhaps they should stick to reviewing and leave the playing to us. The paying punter.

Link to comment

It literally was ... 17 people said yes maybe so thousands have to suck it up. Well that is incredible and frankly here does it end now a precident appears to have been set.

 

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

Well I think you are viewing the facts in a way that slightly angles the discussion on your favour lol.

 

I don't really know what that means - nor why my view would be biased one way or the other given that I very highly doubt this change will ever cause me any grief at all.

 

Another way it could be interpreted is .... thousands have had their choices removed ... should they wish to choose to use the old way.

 

Choose to use which old way? Organising events in the same way they always have? Nothing stopping them doing that - they just need to make sure there is minimum spacing between their event and others - either in terms of time or distance. I don't know what it's like in your part of the world but I haven't detected any unrest in my own area arising from clashing events and if they didn't clash before I doubt they'll clash in the future, so people can continue to use the old way :)

 

As for unlikely ... who can tell. Any conjecture on that front would certainly be just that conjecture.

 

Well that just leaves the question of whose conjecture is best old man - yours or mine :D

Link to comment

 

There's no reason whatsoever why all the side events around a mega cannot be communicated via gc.com - in fact the guidelines specifically suggest that's precisely what should happen - so I've no idea where you get your conspiracy theory from about clandestine side events attended only by members of the same secret geocaching cliques :blink:

 

Again we probably talk about different things. I did not have side events in mind when I wrote my post, but rather events which are not at all connected to each other, just happen to be too close in distance or time to each other.

 

If one gets denied an event, the easiest way is to organize it nevertheless and outside of gc.com. This already happens for event types that are not longer tolerated on gc.com - no crystal ball needed. I do not expect that mega events will end up with less activities due to the new guidelines.

 

Yes - we probably do talk about different things - because you took a portion of dialogue which revolved around mega events and associated side events and either misunderstood it or just ignored it - accidentally or deliberately - I don't know which, and proceeded with a different argument altogether and also introduced the idea that there are secret caching cliques out there would deliberately organise clandestine / members only events which deliberately exclude the uninitiated :unsure:

 

Could we just draw a line under all that and let the thread return to its original focus before it comes completely off the rails and disappears down the rabbit hole?

 

I too doubt that mega events will end up with fewer activities due to the new guidelines - so there's no problem there either :)

Link to comment

Yes - we probably do talk about different things - because you took a portion of dialogue which revolved around mega events and associated side events and either misunderstood it or just ignored it

 

I replied to your reply

That does presuppose that thousands of people have been negatively affected by the change - which sounds a little unlikely.

 

to the statement

I think you could come up with over 2000 when you add up all the event (including Megas) attendees over the country during a year.

 

As that post did not contain any other statement, I understood it in the manner that over 2000 event attendees are negatively by the new rules.

The statement said that this number includes megaevents but it does not seem to be specifically about megaevents.

 

 

Could we just draw a line under all that and let the thread return to its original focus

 

What's the original focus? While you seem to think that the new rules do not many cachers negatively, not everyone agrees with you.

My statement is that the new rules make cachers suffer that do not care for the smilies and who are not fan of 30 minutes events and did not contribute to the rise.

 

It's not that unrealistic to forecast that a good deal of those events that get rejected will be organized outside of gc.com. That's the reality already today for event types that have no chance at gc.com.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

For example there is a rule on Commercial events, such that you can't say the the event is to be held in a particular named pub (you have to leave people to work this out from the location). Last time I checked it was being applied vigorously, without exceptions.

 

This made me wonder when you last organised an event given, in my very limited experience, this so called rule hasn't been enforced for, crikey - ages! In fact I think that was a couple of years back. Anyway - according to your profile you've organised one event - in 2004, which might explain why you're a little behind.

It emphasises my point. The "No mention of commercial establishments" is a rule that caused much consternation when it was brought in, and IIRC may possibly have led to reviewer resignations. After that I took no further interest in organising events, as I didn't feel that I could work with a body that was so keen on making things unnecessarily difficult. You lose the will. I never got it back, so wasn't aware that this heartily-enforced rule had been removed. Had it been a guideline, where reviewers could use their judgement to allow event organisers leeway if there seemed a genuine need, then no doubt I'd have submitted several events. But no, it was a rigid rule and I've never been inclined to bother since it was brought in.

In my view, the whole "Event Cache" entity needs a radical rethink anyway, so maybe you're correct to claim that rules and guidelines like this don't matter in the least - as it's already a bit of a mess, and adding a couple of extra messy rules doesn't make it much worse.

Link to comment

For example there is a rule on Commercial events, such that you can't say the the event is to be held in a particular named pub (you have to leave people to work this out from the location). Last time I checked it was being applied vigorously, without exceptions.

 

This made me wonder when you last organised an event given, in my very limited experience, this so called rule hasn't been enforced for, crikey - ages! In fact I think that was a couple of years back. Anyway - according to your profile you've organised one event - in 2004, which might explain why you're a little behind.

It emphasises my point. The "No mention of commercial establishments" is a rule that caused much consternation when it was brought in, and IIRC may possibly have led to reviewer resignations. After that I took no further interest in organising events, as I didn't feel that I could work with a body that was so keen on making things unnecessarily difficult. You lose the will. I never got it back, so wasn't aware that this heartily-enforced rule had been removed. Had it been a guideline, where reviewers could use their judgement to allow event organisers leeway if there seemed a genuine need, then no doubt I'd have submitted several events. But no, it was a rigid rule and I've never been inclined to bother since it was brought in.

 

My gut feel is that none of that stacks up.

 

I only started caching in 2010.

 

If I remember correctly, when I started, there was no issue with the mention of venue names in event listings. Then things changed and it was disallowed or discouraged, then there was some outcry - quite rightly because it was an absolutely absurd rule that should never have existed - and then it went away again.

 

Yet you apparently lost the will to host events because of this rule after organising just one event in 2004 which is considerably before, if I'm right - the rule ever existed in the first place.

 

So what you claim as the coffin nail in your event hosting career appears to be something of an anachronism and if that's true - it doesn't prove your point at all.

 

In my view, the whole "Event Cache" entity needs a radical rethink anyway, so maybe you're correct to claim that rules and guidelines like this don't matter in the least - as it's already a bit of a mess, and adding a couple of extra messy rules doesn't make it much worse.

 

Did I claim that rules and guidelines like this don't matter in the least? Perhaps I did - I'm too lazy to scroll back and check. I do remember asking does it matter? in a recent post - but that's not quite the same thing. In fact that was part of an invitation for anyone so able to come along and prove that it does matter - by telling us how their events have been hurt or derailed by this particular change.

 

For me, the rule change which forced events to be in a single location for a minimum period did far, far more to hurt events than this current change ever will.

Link to comment

For me, the rule change which forced events to be in a single location for a minimum period did far, far more to hurt events than this current change ever will.

 

I tend to agree, however this new rule will lead to a further reduction of the number of events submitted to gc.com. The moving event rule was an unfortunate decision, but it gets worse if further unfortunate changes are implemented. The more restrictions are added, the fewer cachers will be willing to use gc.com to organize events.

 

What puzzles me is that GS complains about the increased number of 30 minutes events even though the changes implemented by GS are responsible to a large extent for this increase. They will not force cachers to organize events where one stays for hours at the same location.

The new UK rules will not address the high number of 30 minutes events as the event duration does not play a rule in the newly set up rules.

Link to comment

For me, the rule change which forced events to be in a single location for a minimum period did far, far more to hurt events than this current change ever will.

 

this new rule will lead to a further reduction of the number of events submitted to gc.com.

 

And presumably this insight stems from your extensive experience of submitting events to gc.com...

Link to comment

this new rule will lead to a further reduction of the number of events submitted to gc.com.

And presumably this insight stems from your extensive experience of submitting events to gc.com...

 

Did you overlook that a reduction of the number of events that take place is also one of the goals of the new rules (at least according to the reviewing team)? Of course if an event collides with the new rules, it could be shifted in time or location, but that does not seem to be likely to happen in the majority of the cases.

 

It seems pretty logical that prospective event organizers decide to either have no event or organize their event outside of gc.com if they are not allowed to have their planned event on gc.com.

I cannot see why this is related to the experience of whomsoever.

Link to comment

this new rule will lead to a further reduction of the number of events submitted to gc.com.

And presumably this insight stems from your extensive experience of submitting events to gc.com...

 

Did you overlook that a reduction of the number of events that take place is also one of the goals of the new rules (at least according to the reviewing team)?

 

Yes - I think I must have done - do you have a quote?

 

It seems pretty logical that prospective event organizers decide to either have no event or organize their event outside of gc.com if they are not allowed to have their planned event on gc.com.

I cannot see why this is related to the experience of whomsoever.

 

It also seems pretty logical that these prospective event organizers could simply tweak dates / times to allow their planned event to go ahead - it's not rocket science.

 

Your real-world experience of the subject certainly has an impact in how your observations / guesses are perceived. You do frequently write tomes on subjects you have no involvement in.

Link to comment

Did you overlook that a reduction of the number of events that take place is also one of the goals of the new rules (at least according to the reviewing team)?

 

Yes - I think I must have done - do you have a quote?

 

I probably should have added above that take place in an area within a certain time period - that was I intended to say, but that's also what counts for the cachers in a certain area who are interested into a certain type of event.

 

I have statements like

Events are social gatherings of geocachers and having too many too close to each other diminishes their value to the community.

 

and

 

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.

 

in mind.

 

The first implies that the UK reviewers favour one event at an inn with say 35 participants to one event at an inn with say 30 participants and one concurrent event (within 20 miles and 10 hours) on an mountain with 20 participants. Those only interested into the mountain event will lose.

 

 

It also seems pretty logical that these prospective event organizers could simply tweak dates / times to allow their planned event to go ahead - it's not rocket science.

 

They could and some will do it that way (being very flexible, frustration tolerant and willing to go for compromise solutions just to be allowed to use gc.com), but others won't as they will not see why they should e.g. move their event from say the weekend when they are celebrating their birthday to a different weekend or why move an event on Pi day in the evening when they have time to the morning when they do not have time or why shift an event on a mountain just because a event at an inn takes place within 20 miles.

 

 

Your real-world experience of the subject certainly has an impact in how your observations / guesses are perceived.

 

There are two sides of events: Organizing them and taking part into them. For example, in my area there used to be a night hiking event at the Thursday before Easter. When moving events became impossible, the tradition stopped. A privately organized group of cachers still continues the tradition, but outside of gc.com. I could list many more examples of this type where events that got organized for several reasons vanished from gc.com (moving events, events with higher T ratings, events where entrance fees are involved etc). The example are not all from the same area and not all from the same country. I would be surprised if it were not the case in the UK too and the fact that some UK cachers stated here that they feel inhibited by the events rules reinforces my impression.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Did you overlook that a reduction of the number of events that take place is also one of the goals of the new rules (at least according to the reviewing team)?

 

Yes - I think I must have done - do you have a quote?

 

I probably should have added above that take place in an area within a certain time period - that was I intended to say, but that's also what counts for the cachers in a certain area who are interested into a certain type of event.

 

I have statements like

Events are social gatherings of geocachers and having too many too close to each other diminishes their value to the community.

 

and

 

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.

 

in mind.

 

 

So you infer that this means reviewers and /or Groundspeak want to see fewer events, rather than only fewer events which last only 30 minutes...

 

It also seems pretty logical that these prospective event organizers could simply tweak dates / times to allow their planned event to go ahead - it's not rocket science.

 

They could and some will do it that way (being very flexible, frustration tolerant and willing to go for compromise solutions just to be allowed to use gc.com), but others won't as they will not see why they should e.g. move their event from say the weekend when they are celebrating their birthday to a different weekend or why move an event on Pi day in the evening when they have time to the morning when they do not have time or why shift an event on a mountain just because a event at an inn takes place within 20 miles.

 

Yep - not everything in life works out the way we want it to - there are only so many hours in the day after all. Disappointment requires adequate planning.

 

Your real-world experience of the subject certainly has an impact in how your observations / guesses are perceived.

 

There are two sides of events: Organizing them and taking part into them. For example, in my area there used to be a night hiking event at the Thursday before Easter. When moving events became impossible, the tradition stopped. A privately organized group of cachers still continues the tradition, but outside of gc.com. I could list many more examples of this type where events that got organized for several reasons vanished from gc.com (moving events, events with higher T ratings, events where entrance fees are involved etc). The example are not all from the same area and not all from the same country. I would be surprised if it were not the case in the UK too and the fact that some UK cachers stated here that they feel inhibited by the events rules reinforces my impression.

 

Are there no examples in existence which contradict your impression?

Link to comment

So you infer that this means reviewers and /or Groundspeak want to see fewer events, rather than only fewer events which last only 30 minutes...

 

The first quote I used did not make reference to 30 minutes. Moreover, it's well known that many 30 minutes events on gc.com are placeholders for real events that take longer but are not allowed on gc.com.

The new rules equally harm long and short events and they might have even larger effects on longer ones as those cannot be shifted that easily.

In my opinion, the number of 30 minutes events could be effectively decreased by allowing moving events and removing event souvenirs.

 

Yep - not everything in life works out the way we want it to - there are only so many hours in the day after all. Disappointment requires adequate planning.

 

Right, but I cannot see a good reason to reject event that are not examples of event stacking and hurt noone.

 

From the point of view of someone who has the choice to jump through several hoops to get an event listed at gc.com which is quite different from the planned event or organize the event without gc.com or not all, the choice for gc.com will not need to be the optimal one and so many potential events get lost for gc.com.

 

Are there no examples in existence which contradict your impression?

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm sure that there are many events (I also know such examples) that get submitted and published because the organizers were willing to compromise (and often also the reviewers are trying to help to arrive at a workable solution). I did not say that the new rules are the end of events.

I'm convinced however that quite a number of events which are not examples of event stacking will not take place within the gc.com framework due to the new rules. This has happened due to other rules/guidelines too and it's pretty unrealistic to assume that it will not happen here too.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

A question I saw elsewhere; which I don't recall having been answered/clarified:

 

The UK Event Stacking Guidelines: Do they apply to CITOs?

 

This isn't clear to me as CITO is a different cache type from Event. And the global "stacking" guidelines are listed for Event caches only, not CITO.

 

Just looking for a yes or no.

Link to comment

A question I saw elsewhere; which I don't recall having been answered/clarified:

 

The UK Event Stacking Guidelines: Do they apply to CITOs?

 

This isn't clear to me as CITO is a different cache type from Event. And the global "stacking" guidelines are listed for Event caches only, not CITO.

 

Just looking for a yes or no.

 

I asked the question in a separate thread and got the following reply:

 

An event after a CITO is fine. It's a chance for those working hard clearing up an area to relax and socialise, perhaps over a drink or a meal.

Link to comment

I asked the question in a separate thread and got the following reply:

 

An event after a CITO is fine. It's a chance for those working hard clearing up an area to relax and socialise, perhaps over a drink or a meal.

 

I saw that too, but that isn't my question. Is the CITO itself considered an "Event" per the guidelines?

 

The answer could be:

 

1. Yes - but we will allow an Event after a CITO. It's a chance for those working hard clearing up an area to relax and socialise, perhaps over a drink or a meal.

 

2. No. CITOs are not covered by this rule.

 

If it is Yes, it means a CITO could be rejected if there was another CITO (or Event?) within 10 hours and 20 miles.

 

My question is very simple. Does "Event" include "Event Cache" and "CITO Event", or just "Event Cache"?

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...