Event Guidelines

[+barefootjeff]

Which is in sharp contrast to the (in Austria not too long ago) 'a reviewer can and does refuse publish if not 1/1 regardless of the real circumstances'.

I can understand the D1 requirement in most instances, but T1? Does that mean all events in Austria must be wheelchair-accessible?

 

I've just had a D1/T2 event published. It's to be held at a picnic area 2km along a walking track and can only be reached by hiking (or kayaking up the creek if the tide's high enough). I'm sure the reviewer here would've objected strongly if I'd tried to describe that as T1 as it's most definitely not wheelchair-accessible.

[+The A-Team]

The guidelines are not saying anything about whether the reviewers should only question ratings that they consider to be incorrect or whether they are instructed to not publish events with ratings when they are convinced that the ratings are wrong. That's not a question of appeal.

If some reviewers in a given region are reviewing Events in one way, and one reviewer in that region is reviewing in a totally different way, then I wouldn't hesitate to bring it to Appeals. If Appeals deems that this isn't their jurisdiction, then take it to Groundspeak in general. Significant inconsistency between reviewers within the same region is something Groundspeak can and should deal with, and I'm sure they would if you can find the right avenue of communication.

[+AnnaMoritz]

It had been a different concept. The allowed event was a 30 min meeting before or after the real event in an inn or a parking lot, so 1/1 was 'right'.

 

But it doesn't matter anymore because that time already ended. I only mentioned it because quite a few cachers then stated they stopped organizing events because the were told make it 1/1 while their idea wasn't another meet 'n greet on the street or in a pub.

 

Now T can be whatever seems explainable. So owners choose a place in a via ferrata, there of course T5 is allowed.

 

And T now can even be what is not explainable at all.

 

Plus D can be anything despite 'D1 is appropriate'.

 

It is fine that it is being suggested to consult the help section and look what similar events are rated if you are unsure how to rate your own event.

 

Under normal circumstances that would lead to exactly 1/1, not to 4.5/4.

 

I'm really surprized that only a small minority here sees a gap between D4.5 for such an event and the 'appropriate is D1' (besides the T).

 

I wonder which other parts of the help section/guidelines might be optional too. Sometimes for example the 'needs a logbook' for traditional caches seems optional from looking at logs and NAs where nothing seems to happen (for sure the owner was promising there will be a logbook and only the circumstances ...) and ALRs like 'bring your own lock and place it on the bridge'.

 

But the original question is already answered:

 

If the owner chooses to not react to a reviewer telling him to reconsider DT the event gets published, reviewers are not instructed to not publish events that have clearly wrong D. And no one will react to NA. And the owner knowing already that the DT is questionable from the reviewer is very unlikely going to change his mind due to a message/note from another player.

 

Everyone is free to skip that event. That's it.

Edited September 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+MartyBartfast]

Well I see the ratings on the caches in the OP have now been changed to 1/1.5 (by the reviewer) so nothing to see here now

[+hzoi]

Well I see the ratings on the caches in the OP have now been changed to 1/1.5 (by the reviewer) so nothing to see here now

Our long (inter)national nightmare is over.

 

Nachdem der Owner bei der Bewertung von Difficulty und Terrain sehr viel Phantasie bewiesen hat, habe ich die Bewertung wieder auf jene Werte zurückgestellt, wie sie zum Zeitpunkt des Publish bestanden haben.

 

My (probably poor) translation:

 

Since the owner showed too much imagination in setting the difficulty and terrain, I, the reviewer, reset the values to how they were set at the time of publication.

[+res2100]

Most of that would fall under the T5, however the D5 comes in that there was an immense amount of mental preperation needed and also overcoming mental obstacles in the process of getting there. Just like solving a high D puzzle that needed mental work, so did the process to successfully make it to the top of the mountain where the event was. Everyone agreed that attended that it was definitely a D5.

 

A D1 rating would imply that a person would have a very easy time getting to and finding the event and for this event, it was not the case. However if the event was in a park or a restaurant there really shouldn't be a reason it should be anything more than a D1.

Based on your reasoning, one reason why a park event should be something more than a D1 would be if it was a "pot luck" event. There can be some mental preparation involved in going to the grocery store, cooking a dish, and figuring out how to get it to the event while it's still warm.

 

No, a park cache with a pot luck would still be a D1, since the pot luck portion would be optional...according to the guidelines.

I do a couple tough hike events every year which are also a D1 and always have been for the last 10 years, since all you have to do is show up at the start (which as per the guidelines is the event, and the hike is just an optional activity)...you don't actually have to hike. If people were required to hike then the raiting would be a couple points higher.

[+res2100]

Your reviewer questioned the event rating exactly as instructed by Geocaching HQ, and therefore, exactly as other reviewers do if they've read all the memos. He did his job correctly. I can tell this by reading the archived pre-publication reviewer notes.

 

Whether your reviewer "doesn't mind" is irrelevant, and it's a bit unfair to insinuate that "the reviewer isn't doing their job." When I leave similar reviewer notes for event hosts, in my experience the event host has changed the inaccurate rating(s). This event host didn't. You could consider skipping the event if you didn't want to distort your personal statistics.

 

My question is, can an event be rated higher than a D1? According to the guidelines, no, yet we see higher rated D events quite often. If that is the case, why are events allowed to be published with ratings higher than a D1? In the end, does the event host have the right to choose whatever rating they want based on their own opinion? Can a reviewer say "Your D rating is wrong and it won't be published unless it is a D1"?

 

If all events should be a D1 like the guideines suggest, then a simple change in code to force a default for events to a D1 (and don't allow the option to change it) should perhaps be made and it would avoid the entire issue.

[+Touchstone]

Your reviewer questioned the event rating exactly as instructed by Geocaching HQ, and therefore, exactly as other reviewers do if they've read all the memos. He did his job correctly. I can tell this by reading the archived pre-publication reviewer notes.

 

Whether your reviewer "doesn't mind" is irrelevant, and it's a bit unfair to insinuate that "the reviewer isn't doing their job." When I leave similar reviewer notes for event hosts, in my experience the event host has changed the inaccurate rating(s). This event host didn't. You could consider skipping the event if you didn't want to distort your personal statistics.

 

My question is, can an event be rated higher than a D1? According to the guidelines, no, yet we see higher rated D events quite often. If that is the case, why are events allowed to be published with ratings higher than a D1? In the end, does the event host have the right to choose whatever rating they want based on their own opinion? Can a reviewer say "Your D rating is wrong and it won't be published unless it is a D1"?

 

If all events should be a D1 like the guideines suggest, then a simple change in code to force a default for events to a D1 (and don't allow the option to change it) should perhaps be made and it would avoid the entire issue.

I know this thread has become a TLDR, but previously stated (I believe by the same Mod), Groundspeak has given directions to the Reviewers to question erroneous Difficulty ratings, but not to necessarily hold up Publication.

 

It always makes me chuckle when I see a solution like, "...a simple change in code...". I really have my doubts about that claim

 

Sounds like some people feel VERY STRONGLY about this issue. What I think Groundspeak needs is a petition page or website, like the Federal Government has. Once they have a certain number of petitioners signing on to an idea, then they make a response on whether it is a "...simple change in code..." or not

Edited September 17, 2016 by Touchstone

[+NeverSummer]

Ah, yes. I remember this topic from the other exhaustive thread. Who is popping the corn today?

[+MartyBartfast]

What I think Groundspeak needs is a petition page or website, like the Federal Government has. Once they have a certain number of petitioners signing on to an idea, then they make a response on whether it is a "...simple change in code..." or not

 

Well they tried that a few years ago, but rather than making a response as to whether they were simple changes, they just closed the whole idea down.

[+cerberus1]

What I think Groundspeak needs is a petition page or website, like the Federal Government has. Once they have a certain number of petitioners signing on to an idea, then they make a response on whether it is a "...simple change in code..." or not

 

Well they tried that a few years ago, but rather than making a response as to whether they were simple changes, they just closed the whole idea down.

I don't really blame 'em much.

Sure many remember how someone would post an idea, and instead of debating it, a pile-on of "me too!" posts, just making it annoying/confusing.

"I'd like to see..."

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Well, it might work if..."

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

Some, you had to hit pages just to see what the actual conversation was about.

[+MartyBartfast]

What I think Groundspeak needs is a petition page or website, like the Federal Government has. Once they have a certain number of petitioners signing on to an idea, then they make a response on whether it is a "...simple change in code..." or not

 

Well they tried that a few years ago, but rather than making a response as to whether they were simple changes, they just closed the whole idea down.

I don't really blame 'em much.

Sure many remember how someone would post an idea, and instead of debating it, a pile-on of "me too!" posts, just making it annoying/confusing.

"I'd like to see..."

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

"Well, it might work if..."

"Me too!"

"Me too!"

Some, you had to hit pages just to see what the actual conversation was about.

 

No, I'm talking about the (brief) dalliance they had with what I think was a third party site, whereby we could post a suggestion, then people voted on the suggestions, and it was sold to us that GC would prioritise the most popular ideas for development/implementation, so there was just one page for the idea and score of the number of votes cast by members.

 

It didn't last long.

[+niraD]

It didn't last long.

The site was Uservoice. Groundspeak explained why the dropped it here:

https://www.geocaching.com/feedback/

 

As I understand it, the short version is that they got far more more suggestions than they could respond to, let alone implement.

[Keystone]

In addition, the security features of UserVoice were not up to snuff. It was hard to stop a miscreant poster or spammer there. Now, feature suggestions can be made here in these forums, where there's a watchful moderating team and a strong set of tools.

[+MartyBartfast]

Now, feature suggestions can be made here in these forums, where there's a watchful moderating team and a strong set of tools.

 

yeah, and that works really well doesn't it? really responsive:-

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284690&hl=ghost%20trackables&st=0

 

 

To be honest I don't believe GS take much notice of the community's wishes any more, not like they used to back in the day, and I wish they would drop the pretence that we have some say in which direction they go in.

Edited September 18, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[+Isonzo Karst]

Now, feature suggestions can be made here in these forums, where there's a watchful moderating team and a strong set of tools.

 

yeah, and that works really well doesn't it? really responsive:-

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284690&hl=ghost%20trackables&st=0

 

 

To be honest I don't believe GS take much notice of the community's wishes any more, not like they used to back in the day, and I wish they would drop the pretence that we have some say in which direction they go in.

 

You may have missed the bulk Mark Missing action on trackables, recently done by the site.

While it's not the requested Ghost Trackable logging Feature, it was and will be an action that cleans up trackable inventories quite a lot.

Effective, and apparently cheaper to do than new log type coding.

[+MartyBartfast]

Now, feature suggestions can be made here in these forums, where there's a watchful moderating team and a strong set of tools.

 

yeah, and that works really well doesn't it? really responsive:-

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284690&hl=ghost%20trackables&st=0

 

 

To be honest I don't believe GS take much notice of the community's wishes any more, not like they used to back in the day, and I wish they would drop the pretence that we have some say in which direction they go in.

 

You may have missed the bulk Mark Missing action on trackables, recently done by the site.

While it's not the requested Ghost Trackable logging Feature, it was and will be an action that cleans up trackable inventories quite a lot.

Effective, and apparently cheaper to do than new log type coding.

 

No I didn't miss that, but 5 years after saying they had submitted the Ghost trackables idea to their "to do" database, they implemented something which doesn't do what was requested, so not being terribly responsive to submitted requests. And I just picked that as one example from many which have been hanging around for several years.

[+frinklabs]

but 5 years after saying they had submitted the Ghost trackables idea to their "to do" database, they implemented something which doesn't do what was requested, so not being terribly responsive to submitted requests. And I just picked that as one example from many which have been hanging around for several years.

 

SUBMITTED (24998) - [FEATURE] add "Part of a powertrail" to cache attributes

We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.

 

SUBMITTED (25005) - [FEATURE] Nano canister size

We already have this in our database. Implementation must wait for the upcoming GPX schema release.

 

SUBMITTED (25050) - [FEATURE] Time/date controlled publishment of caches

This request is currently in our database.

 

SUBMITTED (25070) - [FEATURE] Email notification of gallery uploads

We have the request in our database to notify cache owners when a photo is uploaded to a log.

 

SUBMITTED (30594) - [FEATURE] Quests - making challenge caches a separate cache type

We have this request in our database. I've added a note to consider the possibility of an attribute in addition to a new cache type/icon.

 

SUBMITTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Allow user-corrected co-ordinates on ALL caches

We are planning to extend this functionality to all cache types.

[+Team Hugs]

So, to try to move back to the topic ...

 

Is there a good example of an event that, under the current guidelines, rates higher than a D1? I can't think of a reason, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I just hosted a D2 event in a wilderness spot surrounded by marshes. If you skipped the optional hike, finding a usable route to GZ might be challenging.

 

Routefinding: difficulty or terrain?

 

I say difficulty; it's a brain thing.

[+Mudfrog]

I just hosted a D2 event in a wilderness spot surrounded by marshes. If you skipped the optional hike, finding a usable route to GZ might be challenging.

 

Routefinding: difficulty or terrain?

 

I say difficulty; it's a brain thing.

 

I don't agree. Just like finding my way to any cache, i have to find the right route to get to ground zero. This could be trails, streets, canals, etc,,,. Agree with Team Hugs, with current guidelines, i haven't been able to come up with any real reason to make difficulty more than 1 on an event.

[+Tassie_Boy]

but 5 years after saying they had submitted the Ghost trackables idea to their "to do" database, they implemented something which doesn't do what was requested, so not being terribly responsive to submitted requests. And I just picked that as one example from many which have been hanging around for several years.

 

SUBMITTED (24998) - [FEATURE] add "Part of a powertrail" to cache attributes

We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.

 

SUBMITTED (25005) - [FEATURE] Nano canister size

We already have this in our database. Implementation must wait for the upcoming GPX schema release.

 

SUBMITTED (25050) - [FEATURE] Time/date controlled publishment of caches

This request is currently in our database.

 

SUBMITTED (25070) - [FEATURE] Email notification of gallery uploads

We have the request in our database to notify cache owners when a photo is uploaded to a log.

 

SUBMITTED (30594) - [FEATURE] Quests - making challenge caches a separate cache type

We have this request in our database. I've added a note to consider the possibility of an attribute in addition to a new cache type/icon.

 

SUBMITTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Allow user-corrected co-ordinates on ALL caches

We are planning to extend this functionality to all cache types.

 

Found another you can add that been requested time and time again:

Fixing Date/ Time

[cezanne]

Just like finding my way to any cache, i have to find the right route to get to ground zero. This could be trails, streets, canals, etc,,,.

 

Yes, but also for a physical cache finding the access/way could be accomodated for in the D-rating. It's certainly nothing that I would account for T when e.g. to access some urban area one needs to try out several approaches before finding the only legal access.

[+Mudfrog]

Just like finding my way to any cache, i have to find the right route to get to ground zero. This could be trails, streets, canals, etc,,,.

 

Yes, but also for a physical cache finding the access/way could be accomodated for in the D-rating. It's certainly nothing that I would account for T when e.g. to access some urban area one needs to try out several approaches before finding the only legal access.

You do have a point there!

 

Got me to thinking that a cache hidden in a maze could possibly be better rated for difficulty instead of terrain. A maze could certainly be wheelchair accessible. Using your brain/senses to find the correct path would be the difficult part. An event can be held in the center of a maze so yes, rating for difficulty could come into play.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Now that is interesting, this event owner is really bold. Didn't show up and set back DT high values again before archiving the events. At the moment it is 4/4.5 and 4.5/3.5, while 6 or 9 minutes ago it was 1/1.5.

Edited September 20, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+igator210]

Now that is interesting, this event owner is really bold. Didn't show up and set back DT high values again before archiving the events. At the moment it is 4/4.5 and 4.5/3.5, while 6 or 9 minutes ago it was 1/1.5.

 

And the Event Owner never showed up?!?! Or at least no one new who the owner was.

[+L0ne.R]

Now that is interesting, this event owner is really bold. Didn't show up and set back DT high values again before archiving the events. At the moment it is 4/4.5 and 4.5/3.5, while 6 or 9 minutes ago it was 1/1.5.

 

Maybe he's really in to "geocaching" for the scoring - 2 very high D/T rated events. He doesn't seem interested in actual geocaching either - no finds (unless this is a sock account).

Edited September 20, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+The A-Team]

Now that is interesting, this event owner is really bold. Didn't show up and set back DT high values again before archiving the events. At the moment it is 4/4.5 and 4.5/3.5, while 6 or 9 minutes ago it was 1/1.5.

And the Event Owner never showed up?!?! Or at least no one new who the owner was.

I'm sure the actual owner showed up so they could get their D/T "reward" to themselves. It's just the sock-puppet account that didn't show up.

[+MartyBartfast]

Now that is interesting, this event owner is really bold. Didn't show up and set back DT high values again before archiving the events. At the moment it is 4/4.5 and 4.5/3.5, while 6 or 9 minutes ago it was 1/1.5.

And the Event Owner never showed up?!?! Or at least no one new who the owner was.

I'm sure the actual owner showed up so they could get their D/T "reward" to themselves. It's just the sock-puppet account that didn't show up.

I'm sure you're right. This does seem particularly sleazy.

 

Perhaps someone who speaks the lingo will Email the reviewer who changed the ratings to tell him that they've been changed back again.