Event Guidelines

[+AnnaMoritz]

Groudspeak Support 1.16. Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain (D/T) says

 

'Events are in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching, so the appropriate difficulty rating for events is one star.'

 

and

 

DIFFICULTY 1 star: Easy to find or solve within a few minutes.

TERRAIN 1 star: Area will likely be paved, flat, wheelchair accessible and will require less than a .5 mile (.8 km) hike.

 

In Austria a 4/4.5 Event (30 min in the morning in front of a bakery on the sidewalk) and a 4,5/3,5 CITO (in a small 7000m² park in the same district) were published that are heavily discussed locally. Owner is an account opened for these two events that has zero finds, the username seems to allude to another username owned by a pupil.

 

One might think that

* Event in plain sight without searching is the same everywhere.

* And paved, flat terrain also.

 

So the event would likely be a 1/1 and the CITO not more than 2/1.5 to the understanding of most (local) geocachers.

 

Is there more than 'The D/T rating system is subjective and varies from community to community.' as Geocaching HQ suggests, if the owners don't react self-motivated to notes and NA?

 

The change some time ago to forced 'default' 1/1 led to interesting events not to being held again. A 1/1 rating for getting on the top of a mountain during night or for skating to reach the log sheet was not quite the idea appreciated by owners nor by attendants. Later is was loosened to D1 and T allowed to be higher only if held in via ferratas or other undoubted T5 locations. In other parts there were no T restrictions.

 

Whereas now it seems that 'anything goes'. To each their own, but some consistency in applying (written and unwritten) rules would be quite favorable.

[+palmetto]

I can see that the reviewer first disabled the listing with an explanation of ratings for events, a specific request for D 1 and a request to reconsider and lower the terrain rating.

Cache was resubmitted and published.

 

I cannot know for certain, but I strongly suspect that at publication the D rating was 1, and the T rating was lower.

 

I see a NA on the listing. I suspect that no reviewer will act, because D and T ratings are advisory only, and arbitrating them from a distance would be

difficult/impossible.

[+Touchstone]

Groudspeak Support 1.16. Ratings for Difficulty and Terrain (D/T) says

 

'Events are in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching, so the appropriate difficulty rating for events is one star.'

 

and

 

DIFFICULTY 1 star: Easy to find or solve within a few minutes.

TERRAIN 1 star: Area will likely be paved, flat, wheelchair accessible and will require less than a .5 mile (.8 km) hike.

 

In Austria a 4/4.5 Event (30 min in the morning in front of a bakery on the sidewalk) and a 4,5/3,5 CITO (in a small 7000m² park in the same district) were published that are heavily discussed locally. Owner is an account opened for these two events that has zero finds, the username seems to allude to another username owned by a pupil.

 

One might think that

* Event in plain sight without searching is the same everywhere.

* And paved, flat terrain also.

 

So the event would likely be a 1/1 and the CITO not more than 2/1.5 to the understanding of most (local) geocachers.

 

Is there more than 'The D/T rating system is subjective and varies from community to community.' as Geocaching HQ suggests, if the owners don't react self-motivated to notes and NA?

 

The change some time ago to forced 'default' 1/1 led to interesting events not to being held again. A 1/1 rating for getting on the top of a mountain during night or for skating to reach the log sheet was not quite the idea appreciated by owners nor by attendants. Later is was loosened to D1 and T allowed to be higher only if held in via ferratas or other undoubted T5 locations. In other parts there were no T restrictions.

 

Whereas now it seems that 'anything goes'. To each their own, but some consistency in applying (written and unwritten) rules would be quite favorable.

My understanding is the same as yours, except for your second to last paragraph. Difficulties are, for the most part, a 1 Star Difficulty without exception. In my area, Terrain could vary, depending on location.

 

In my experience from past Events I've seen, deviation from this policy prior to its institution, were usually attempts by the Host(ess) to be humorous, or to facilitate Attendees to fill in a particular D/T grid.

 

Sorry to hear that you no longer have interesting Events in your area. The policy has had very little impact in my area.

[cezanne]

Sorry to hear that you no longer have interesting Events in your area. The policy has had very little impact in my area.

 

Probably because moving events have not been accepted since a long time and so hiking events and others of that type have never gone through as official events.

While one can of course come up with workarounds where the official event is a boring 30 minutes event and the rest happens outside of the event framework this is not what the organizers

of events where the real intent is not standing around for 30 minutes have in mind.

[cezanne]

I see a NA on the listing. I suspect that no reviewer will act, because D and T ratings are advisory only, and arbitrating them from a distance would be

difficult/impossible.

 

I also do not expect an action from a reviewer, but not because arbitrating could be difficult. It's trivial to see for the reviewers who know the area well enough that the ratings cannot be true but the reviewer who

published the events does not care at all about ratings. It would also work to get a T=5* event through which takes place at an inn reachable for people in wheelchairs.

 

I have long ago stopped to care about events at all. What I noticed however is that there is a lot of inconsistency. A former reviewer for Austria (stepped down for private reasons a while ago) insisted on meaningful ratings for events and was very strict about them while the remaining reviewers do not care much or not at all.

[+Touchstone]

Sorry to hear that you no longer have interesting Events in your area. The policy has had very little impact in my area.

 

Probably because moving events have not been accepted since a long time and so hiking events and others of that type have never gone through as official events.

While one can of course come up with workarounds where the official event is a boring 30 minutes event and the rest happens outside of the event framework this is not what the organizers

of events where the real intent is not standing around for 30 minutes have in mind.

LOL. You must have a very fidgety group of cachers on these hikes. In our area, it's not uncommon to take a lunch break which satisfies the 30 minute requirement. Since the website does not support any aspect of "moving" in its database (e.g. tracklog etc.), it seems like a fictional construct. Caches are static, trackables are static, so it seems consistent that Events should be static as far as the database is concerned.

[+hzoi]

I have seen some ridiculous ratings on events. They should not be difficult to find (unless there is a puzzle or something associated with finding them). As for the terrain, it should fir the bill. I attended a hiking event with a 4 terrain rating, I had no issue with that. I attended another in a German restaurant with a 3.5 terrain rating, no idea why. I attended a boating event that was a 5/5; terrain, sure, but it should have been a 1 difficulty.

 

I would see no reason why these events should have inflated ratings, other than clearly someone is trying to fill the D/T grid, either for themselves or for a friend.

 

edit to add: looking back through our events, I apparently rated two of them as 1.5 difficulty. I've no idea why.

Edited September 13, 2016 by hzoi

[+AnnaMoritz]

'Traditional' events can be interesting too, and they weren't affected by the 1/1 ruling anyway. And special interest events that don't include more difficult conditions still are there.

 

But I really miss outdorsy events like 'Howling wolf' where you went up as group(s) to a chapel near a summit on a mountain in the dark (when I attended through snow), stayed for some time - only moonlight and no flashlight, went back down and ended the evening after a few hours outdoor experience (in a well known inn that is opened very long).

 

No one is willing to do this as 1/1, so such events now are outside of "official geocaching".

 

Or the one where you used your boat to get to a floating island.

 

Or the one where you followed the famous Viennese Ice Path on your ice skates to meet the owner on the ice.

 

But for them who like short meet and greet events where you are standing around in a city park or a central place or like sitting at a restaurant 1/1 is fine.

 

Allowing a 1/1 event to be rated as 4/4.5 and at the same time not publishing other events that 'deserve' not to be 1/1 is ehm underwhelming.

 

And if the event was published under the restraint it has to be 1/1 why can the owner change it without being reminded it was pubishable as 1/1? And if the D/T was inappropriate at the time it was published, why publish it?

 

Of course there are people that want to fill their matrix or whatever, but D1 is D1 or take it out of the guidelines / support pages.

Edited September 13, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+Touchstone]

'Traditional' events can be interesting too, and they weren't affected by the 1/1 ruling anyway. And special interest events that don't include more difficult conditions still are there.

 

But I really miss outdorsy events like 'Howling wolf' where you went up as group(s) to a chapel near a summit on a mountain in the dark (when I attended through snow), stayed for some time - only moonlight and no flashlight, went back down and ended the evening after a few hours outdoor experience (in a well known inn that is opened very long).

 

No one is willing to do this as 1/1, so such events now are outside of "official geocaching".

 

Or the one where you used your boat to get to a floating island.

 

Or the one where you followed the famous Viennese Ice Path on your ice skates to meet the owner on the ice.

 

But for them who like short meet and greet events where you are standing around in a city park or a central place or like sitting at a restaurant 1/1 is fine.

 

Allowing a 1/1 event to be rated as 4/4.5 and at the same time not publishing other events that 'deserve' not to be 1/1 is ehm underwhelming.

 

And if the event was published under the restraint it has to be 1/1 why can the owner change it without being reminded it was pubishable as 1/1? And if the D/T was inappropriate at the time it was published, why publish it?

 

Of course there are people that want to fill their matrix or whatever, but D1 is D1 or take it out of the guidelines / support pages.

As Palmetto pointed out, the Reviewer appeared to perform all due diligence as far as documenting the issue. The Host(ess) decided to ignore this advice, so it seems like the onus is on the Host(ess) now. To take action on the Listing at this point (i.e. Archiving) seems like it would punish the Community more than the Host(ess).

 

My guess is that the Host(ess) will more than likely attract more scrutiny and delays on future submissions. At least, that usually is how these things play out, with a few trips to Appeals along the way.

[cezanne]

LOL. You must have a very fidgety group of cachers on these hikes. In our area, it's not uncommon to take a lunch break which satisfies the 30 minute requirement.

 

The nice part of the experience in my eyes is the group hike and not the break. If the break is the official event, many will just come for the break and if the break does not take part in a remote location, they will take a different route and not what I consider the event route. The same is true for activities like ice skating etc.

 

 

Since the website does not support any aspect of "moving" in its database (e.g. tracklog etc.), it seems like a fictional construct. Caches are static, trackables are static, so it seems consistent that Events should be static as far as the database is concerned.

 

Fact is that such events have been published in many areas for many years and that they are the only events that I really enjoyed. A 30 minutes event is not worth to go there from my point of view.

Edited September 13, 2016 by cezanne

[cezanne]

 

As Palmetto pointed out, the Reviewer appeared to perform all due diligence as far as documenting the issue. The Host(ess) decided to ignore this advice,

 

Was it the same reviewer? Or did the cacher exploit that the two reviewers in charge do not act consistently in this matter?

[+Touchstone]

 

As Palmetto pointed out, the Reviewer appeared to perform all due diligence as far as documenting the issue. The Host(ess) decided to ignore this advice,

 

Was it the same reviewer? Or did the cacher exploit that the two reviewers in charge do not act consistently in this matter?

I dare say, it might be safe to *assume*, that two or more Reviewers that share a territory should be consistent with one another, particularly when there is a well established, documented policy on the topic. If not, it's probably a pretty safe bet that Groundspeak would work towards getting the Review in a particular territory on the same page, in the interest of "playing well together". I know that I've seen a thread or two on the subject (UK and Germany come to mind), where the Reviewing Teams added further clarification to existing Guidelines, which was more regionally specific (e.g. roundabout thread in UK subforum).

 

As far as the tangential topic of "moving" Events, I'll have to apologize and bow out, as a previous thread was debated ad nauseam, to the point I was suffering from Chronic Forum Fatigue Syndrome on the subject.

[+Mudfrog]

LOL. You must have a very fidgety group of cachers on these hikes. In our area, it's not uncommon to take a lunch break which satisfies the 30 minute requirement.

 

The nice part of the experience in my eyes is the group hike and not the break. If the break is the official event, many will just come for the break and if the break does not take part in a remote location, they will take a different route and not what I consider the event route. The same is true for activities like ice skating etc.

 

 

Since the website does not support any aspect of "moving" in its database (e.g. tracklog etc.), it seems like a fictional construct. Caches are static, trackables are static, so it seems consistent that Events should be static as far as the database is concerned.

 

Fact is that such events have been published in many areas for many years and that they are the only events that I really enjoyed. A 30 minutes event is not worth to go there from my point of view.

I agree with you in feeling the entire time out is the event. But it doesn't take anything away from me when people show up for a scheduled break (the event) in the middle of the outing. I've seen this happen on one of the local 10 mile geocaching hikes. Most of us consider the entire hike to be the event but a break was scheduled about halfway through to satisfy gc.com guidelines. This break was at a point where people could come in from a different direction (they only had to walk 1/4 mile from parking). Of course, everyone had a great time.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I had a recurring dinner event (I recycled the listing with a new date monthly), with D/T chosen by me on a whim.

 

One month I put it as D5, and said, Come prepared for intelligent conversation, abstract concepts, and deep ideas. Difficulty adjusted to suit..

 

That was, by the way, the period when Groundspeak was granting little tiny images for doing a D5 cache. Souvenirs, badges, something like that.

 

Somebody got steamed about getting a tiny image for attending a dinner event and complained right over the reviewer's head, so the Frog archived and locked the event.

 

Apparently I don't take these things seriously enough.

 

~~~

 

Tempting fate again: the hike I'm leading this weekend is a D2, because hikes take preparation.

[+res2100]

I've held many events. Most are a 1 for difficulty however there are times where the difficulty needs to be higher. In 2008 I held an event at the top of the highest mountain in Ontario which was very appropriately rated a D5/T5. It involved water crossing, elevation change, 30km round trip hiking, 10km round trip of bushwacking. 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.

 

However looking at the Help Center for 1.16, it now clearly states that an event should be a 1, even though if used that rating for for my event in 2008, it would have been very misleading and could have resulted in some serious issues or even death if people thought it was an easy one to attend.

 

I look at it as follows:

Difficulty = Mental

Terrain = Physical

...The guidelines however no longer seem to follow that like they did in the olden days. There does need to be consistancy across the world though and if it is mandatory for events to be a D1, then reviewers should insist on it so the above mentioned events by the OP should not be published as such. Then again I was told by appeals last year that a cache owner can give any DT rating to their cache even if it is inaccurate.

[Keystone]

Alternatively, one can view the ratings like this:

Difficulty = the process of finding the cache at ground zero (including solving any puzzle to learn where ground zero is) and accessing the logbook for signature (the puzzle and logbook considerations being irrelevant for event caches)

Terrain = the process of getting to the cache from a logical departure point

 

Viewed thusly, an event cache at the top of a mountain could be rated as T5 if climbing equipment was needed to get there. But to be a difficulty 5 event cache, the participants would need to be hiding in a cave or behind bushes, so that it was nearly impossible to see the other participants except after a prolonged search.

 

I'd also like to remind everyone that the reviewer of the events mentioned in the OP did his job properly by questioning the ratings prior to publication.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Keystone

[cezanne]

I'd also like to remind everyone that the reviewer of the events mentioned in the OP did his job properly by questioning the ratings prior to publication.

 

I still consider it to be unfair that some events get published with whatever crazy and incorrect D/T-rating while others where there is more substance behind a higher T-rating than in the example events mentioned in the OP (for example if the real intent of the event is a hike) are not published before the ratings are adapted and changed to very low ratings.

 

If the job of the reviewer is just to question the ratings, then essentially each event owner finally could choose what they like and then events like the ice skating event and many hiking events in my country would still exist. Cachers could still participate by not taking part in the activities, but those taking part would end up with meaningful ratings for taking part and not for standing around for 30 minutes.

[+Mudfrog]

Alternatively, one can view the ratings like this:

Difficulty = the process of finding the cache at ground zero (including solving any puzzle to learn where ground zero is) and accessing the logbook for signature (the puzzle and logbook considerations being irrelevant for event caches)

Terrain = the process of getting to the cache from a logical departure point

 

Yep, seems simple enough.

 

Terrain can be all over the place but once you get to ground zero, finding the event and logbook is normally very easy. I suppose the host/hostess could have it set up to where people would have to solve an in field puzzle to locate the logbook. Or the logbook could just be hidden really well. To this day, i've never encountered this. I may be wrong but i actually thought things like this went against gc.com event guidelines.

[+Touchstone]

Alternatively, one can view the ratings like this:

Difficulty = the process of finding the cache at ground zero (including solving any puzzle to learn where ground zero is) and accessing the logbook for signature (the puzzle and logbook considerations being irrelevant for event caches)

Terrain = the process of getting to the cache from a logical departure point

 

Yep, seems simple enough.

 

Terrain can be all over the place but once you get to ground zero, finding the event and logbook is normally very easy. I suppose the host/hostess could have it set up to where people would have to solve an in field puzzle to locate the logbook. Or the logbook could just be hidden really well. To this day, i've never encountered this. I may be wrong but i actually thought things like this went against gc.com event guidelines.

Ya, kinda. Groundspeak seems to think that Events should be as inclusive as possible, and not some private hide and seek game, catch me on the trail if you can, or I'm skating around on the ice somewhere with a funny hat and you have to find me. That, and the logbook part is totally optional for attendees. I'm tell in' ya, what a bunch of buzzkills. It's like they expect us to go to Events to socialize.

[+CanadianRockies]

Terrain can be all over the place but once you get to ground zero, finding the event and logbook is normally very easy. I suppose the host/hostess could have it set up to where people would have to solve an in field puzzle to locate the logbook. Or the logbook could just be hidden really well. To this day, i've never encountered this. I may be wrong but i actually thought things like this went against gc.com event guidelines.

You are correct. According to the guidelines (III.2.4.):

 

Event Cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an Event Cache.

ETA: An interesting difficulty rating question is whether you can create an event cache with final coordinates that are part of a puzzle that needed to be solved? Our reviewer said, "No."

Edited September 14, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

[+Touchstone]

Terrain can be all over the place but once you get to ground zero, finding the event and logbook is normally very easy. I suppose the host/hostess could have it set up to where people would have to solve an in field puzzle to locate the logbook. Or the logbook could just be hidden really well. To this day, i've never encountered this. I may be wrong but i actually thought things like this went against gc.com event guidelines.

You are correct. According to the guidelines (III.2.4.):

 

Event Cache owners can request that cachers sign a logbook, but this is optional and cannot be a requirement for logging an Event Cache.

ETA: An interesting difficulty rating question is whether you can create an event cache with final coordinates that are part of a puzzle that needed to be solved? Our reviewer said, "No."

From the Guidelines:

 

It takes place at the posted coordinates...

 

Right off, I'd say that your local Reviewer was correct in rejecting the idea. However, that's not to say you couldn't have a puzzle activity as part of the Event, but that's not the Event, but merely an optional activity that is part of the Event.

[cezanne]

It's like they expect us to go to Events to socialize.

 

They restrict however the way socializing can take place during the official event. I do not like 30 minutes events and I do not like events taking place in restaurants. Those events are those that are unaffected and remain and are still held.

 

For cachers like me they essentially took away the chance to meet geocachers and socialize at an gc.com event in a manner that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me to attend an event and return home unhappier.

I feel more comfortable to talk while moving around and being outdoors and not indoors and I rather combine a physical activity with the event aspect than spending my spare time with sitting around like at work. I'm not expecting a private hide and seek game and I'm not in favour of searching for geocaches during an event.

Edited September 14, 2016 by cezanne

[+Pine and Poplar]

It's like they expect us to go to Events to socialize.

 

They restrict however the way socializing can take place during the official event. I do not like 30 minutes events and I do not like events taking place in restaurants. Those events are those that are unaffected and remain and are still held.

 

For cachers like me they essentially took away the chance to meet geocachers and socialize at an gc.com event in a manner that I enjoy. It makes no sense for me to attend an event and return home unhappier.

I feel more comfortable to talk while moving around and being outdoors and not indoors and I rather combine a physical activity with the event aspect than spending my spare time with sitting around like at work. I'm not expecting a private hide and seek game and I'm not in favour of searching for geocaches during an event.

As has been suggested before, just have the event as a break at some point during the physical activity. IF you are doing a day hike, have the official event occur for 30 minutes where ever you plan to take a lunch break and then provide the additional information on how to join a group hiking out to the event. If it's in any sort of remote or difficult accessibility area, chances are most people who attend the event will also be hiking along with you.

 

I should also add that I don't agree with forcing events to only be listed as a difficulty 1. Most events should be listed as difficulty 1, but lumping the fringe cases in with everything else does a disservice to everyone. I've attended a T5,D1 event on an island. Almost anyone could have attended that event as the hosts provided boats and ferried everyone to and from the island. That's a lot easier than a mountain top event which could require a full day hike or more. You should be allowed to include mental and preparation difficulty in with the event difficulty.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Pine and Poplar

[cezanne]

If it's in any sort of remote or difficult accessibility area, chances are most people who attend the event will also be hiking along with you.

 

Right, but the area I live in does not offer many such locations and if they are really difficult to reach it's beyond my capabilities anyway.

 

I liked easy terrain group hikes in areas which are not remote, e.g. night walks on a day with full moon.

 

The easiest way to such locations will always be shorter and typically easier than the round trip hike and thus one will end with a low T rating that pleases neither the event owner nor the participants.

[+Touchstone]

If it's in any sort of remote or difficult accessibility area, chances are most people who attend the event will also be hiking along with you.

 

Right, but the area I live in does not offer many such locations and if they are really difficult to reach it's beyond my capabilities anyway.

 

I liked easy terrain group hikes in areas which are not remote, e.g. night walks on a day with full moon.

 

The easiest way to such locations will always be shorter and typically easier than the round trip hike and thus one will end with a low T rating that pleases neither the event owner nor the participants.

OK, I think I've got it. Something like the following in the link below. The Event takes place over several days, in a relatively restricted area, and requires you to be pretty much in continues movement for a very long stretch of time. Lots of time to socialize and walk, a level unobstructed path to walk, and unbelievably dedicated volunteers to take care of your every need. I don't see what there could possibly be to dislike in an Event like this:

 

Sri Chinmoy

[cezanne]

OK, I think I've got it. Something like the following in the link below. The Event takes place over several days, in a relatively restricted area, and requires you to be pretty much in continues movement for a very long stretch of time. Lots of time to socialize and walk, a level unobstructed path to walk, and unbelievably dedicated volunteers to take care of your every need.

 

I'm not sure whether you are sarcastic or whether you did not get the main message. Before the change in how events in my country were reviewed, there has been a sufficient number of events that appealed to me - almost of all have gone after the change as the organizers prefer to refrain from using gc.com for their events to ending up with lame compromises where the real event is not part of the gc.com event. The way D/T ratings are handled is not a side issue but a key aspect.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Yep, seems simple enough.

 

Terrain can be all over the place but once you get to ground zero, finding the event and logbook is normally very easy.

 

Dunno. I've been to a few events where I had trouble finding the event. Street corner at Central Park. Which of these people are the cachers? "Hey, Harry. They're over there..." Glad he recognized me.

The other was in the conference room area of a supermarket (Who knew that supermarkets had conference rooms?) The CO was being quiet so he didn't have to pay to use a conference room. He came over when I asked an employee about the event.

 

Remember: 1 terrain means wheelchair friendly.

 

Went to a Pi Day Event with ratings: 3D 1.5T. Darned close to 3.1415! That was cute.

Went to an 11:11:11 11/11 event with a difficulty of 5 for being on a work day. Thought that was a bit off...

[+Touchstone]

OK, I think I've got it. Something like the following in the link below. The Event takes place over several days, in a relatively restricted area, and requires you to be pretty much in continues movement for a very long stretch of time. Lots of time to socialize and walk, a level unobstructed path to walk, and unbelievably dedicated volunteers to take care of your every need.

 

I'm not sure whether you are sarcastic or whether you did not get the main message. Before the change in how events in my country were reviewed, there has been a sufficient number of events that appealed to me - almost of all have gone after the change as the organizers prefer to refrain from using gc.com for their events to ending up with lame compromises where the real event is not part of the gc.com event. The way D/T ratings are handled is not a side issue but a key aspect.

Sounds familiar. I remember when my son was younger, we'd get invited to these Birthday Parties that were excessively planned out. Kids being kids, it was chaos, and the uber-parents either got frustrated trying to herd the kids to the next planned activity, or they just embraced it, and let the kids run wild and have a good time. Sooner or later, people just have to embrace the chaos of getting a bunch of Cachers together. Like they say, go ahead and plan, but once the party starts, throw away the plan.

 

Sounds like that's the case with some of the people you describe. They have a certain way of doing things and are too regimented in their approach on how an Event should be run. Rather than adapt to the change, they just pick up their toys and go elsewhere. It's a pity, but I haven't seen much of a fall off in Events in my area due to the recent changes, only some small adjustments to accommodate the spirit of the Guidelines.

[+AnnaMoritz]

What I conclude from the answers of reviewers here:

 

'Events are in plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching, so the appropriate difficulty rating for events is one star.' and 'DIFFICULTY 1 star: Easy to find or solve within a few minutes.' 'TERRAIN 1 star: Area will likely be paved, flat, wheelchair accessible and will require less than a .5 mile (.8 km) hike.'

 

are completely optional if your reviewer (like it has happened the other way round for events clearly not 1/1) doesn't say 'make it 1/1 or I won't publish it'.

 

There already have been two different correctly rated 1/1 events that also have pictures in their gallery at the same coordinates of the 4/4.5 Event.

 

 

Of course there will be enough participants, you never can fill your matrix more easily than with 1/1 events (no need to stay there longer than 1 minute except for the owner) rated whatever you need plus you get the CITO souvenir for the second event.

 

I've heard that in other areas event owners have to name a local cacher as 'mentor' if they are not from town. Here it is even a dark horse with no finds (most likely an additional account from a local cacher due to the allusions to not everywhere well received occurences like owners not showing up at their own event or simply the excessive number of events) who either wants to conceal his whish for filling his matrix or someone simply mocking the community and proving it is possible to completely turn event guidelines into ridicule.

 

So I have to understand that in this case it isn't possible to judge whether the rating is correct or absurd also for non locals and that the rating system is subjective and allows everything if your reviewer doesn't mind.

Edited September 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[Keystone]

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.

[cezanne]

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."

 

I think what the OP wished to question was not how well this reviewer or any other do their job, but the resulting inconsistency. There are reviewers who do not publish an event based on such ratings and others that publish it. Whether or not the reviewer questioned the rating plays a role when it comes to Groundspeak HQ, but not when it comes to the result for the community. I do understand that you care about the work of the reviewers and how it is perceived. As a local cacher however I only care about the events that get published and those that do not get published. It's anyhow not my task to assess the work of the reviewers.

 

The real question is whether a simple instruction of the type "question ratings that seem to be completely wrong but then decide on your own whether to publish such an event or whether to refrain from publishing with the misratings" is the best approach possible for HQ.

 

Of course a cacher can avoid attending events which are misrated in their opinion. However no cacher can make up for the loss to the community (parts of the community) caused by events that do not take place because some reviewers insist on certain ways to rate events (making it for example then impossible to rate an event which is a hiking event in its spirit but a forced parking lot event with the difficulty/terrain of the hike). That's the real background of the OP as I understand it.

 

How could a potential event organizer know in advance whether or not he/she will be allowed to go with the proposed rating. For many organizers having to end up with 1/1 means a wasted effort and they rather then have no event at all.

Edited September 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

Maybe events should have no ratings.

[+AnnaMoritz]

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.

 

I don't insinuate anything. I want a clarification whether the guidelines are optional if an owner doesn't follow suggestions.

 

So I read it like now are new times where the reviewer says 'reconsider DT' and has to publish whatever the owner wants. Means: The above mentioned guidelines are only optional.

 

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'.

Edited September 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+NYPaddleCacher]

How could a potential event organizer know in advance whether or not he/she will be allowed to go with the proposed rating. For many organizers having to end up with 1/1 means a wasted effort and they rather then have no event at all.

 

Maybe it's just me but it wouldn't bother me a bit if D/T ratings and even counting the attendance an event as a "Find" were eliminated entirely for events.

 

Make Geocaching events all about an opportunity to meet and socialize with other caches and less about filling in a spot on a D/T matrix, satisfying the criteria for some challenge or adding to ones score of how many events one has attended.

 

 

[+AnnaMoritz]

Maybe events should have no ratings.

 

Yes, please, but for sure not going to happen.

 

 

Maybe it's just me but it wouldn't bother me a bit if D/T ratings and even counting the attendance an event as a "Find" were eliminated entirely for events.

 

Make Geocaching events all about an opportunity to meet and socialize with other caches and less about filling in a spot on a D/T matrix, satisfying the criteria for some challenge or adding to ones score of how many events one has attended.

 

Even better. I know that isn't going to happen, events, matrix, calendar and souvenirs fuel detour profitability for the company.

 

But would for sure prevent some of the excesses that are now connected to events. Some bad habits would stop immediately like showing up at an event, signing logbook and moving over after a few minutes or scheduling lots of events with the only purpose to fill a calendar, a matrix, a streak in winter or whatever. Or holiday events on a motorway parking far from a city at 6:30 in the morning where no one except the owner shows up.

 

And events would be back to socializing, be it on the sidewalk, in a restaurant, on a mountain or an island.

 

You could consider skipping the event if you didn't want to distort your personal statistics.

 

I not only consider skipping this and other events, I would not log attended even if I was too curious and went there to see whether the pretended owner shows up und who might be the owner. It is not about me. I wanted clarification from GS to the questions in the local extended discussions about the events that also caused some uproar locally.

Edited September 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+MartyBartfast]

... or someone simply mocking the community and proving it is possible to completely turn event guidelines into ridicule.

 

 

If this is the case, then what would be really funny is to wait until everyone has attended, and got the high D/T rating, and then change the rating to a 1/1

[+AnnaMoritz]

... or someone simply mocking the community and proving it is possible to completely turn event guidelines into ridicule.

 

 

If this is the case, then what would be really funny is to wait until everyone has attended, and got the high D/T rating, and then change the rating to a 1/1

 

That might be a scenario for a really well-plotted prank.

 

As I understand it (maybe I'm wrong) the DT ratings now can only be changed by 'normal' members before archiving, not afterwards.

 

I somewhat doubt the owner will reveal himself (or the hypothetical themself/themselves), but it would also be funny too to unmask him to see who was playing the prank if it was meant to be satirical or who wants to fill the matirx and get a souvenir without being identified.

[+Touchstone]

In summary, it appears that the Reviwer followed guidance/instructions that Groundspeak layed out, and although an advisory note is required, it does not necessarily prevent an Event from getting Published. There is anectdotal evidence that some local Reviewers push back on this issue more than others. This could be explained as a regional difference, where the issue is more acute.

 

Sounds to me that the issue really boils down to the use of a sock account to submit the Event in question, which makes it difficult for the OP to properly bully and harass this miscreant into submission.

[cezanne]

This could be explained as a regional difference, where the issue is more acute.

 

No, in this case it cannot be explained that way. The uproar in the local community is partly based by many rejections in similar cases (unless the ratings got changed) by another reviewer.

 

which makes it difficult for the OP to properly bully and harass this miscreant into submission.

 

It's not at all about the OP. The debate started in a local forum (in German, with many participants) and the OP just asked for clarification in this forum based on a reply another cacher got as reply to a mail sent to GS. It's just that hardly any Austrian cachers use this forum and even less use it actively.

Edited September 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+AnnaMoritz]

In summary, it appears that the Reviwer followed guidance/instructions that Groundspeak layed out, and although an advisory note is required, it does not necessarily prevent an Event from getting Published.

 

Then everything is OK for them who don't waste their time reading guidelines and all others may also adapt to more flexibility.

 

Sounds to me that the issue really boils down to the use of a sock account to submit the Event in question, which makes it difficult for the OP to properly bully and harass this miscreant into submission.

 

Well, you are dead wrong. I didn't expect such a uncalled for and inaccurate insinuation. But my own fault not following the advice most Austrian cachers tell someone who wants to ask questions in this forum. Thank you for reminding me.

 

For clarification purposes: To me it doesn't make any difference who might be the owner. I personally feel such DT ratings are pure nonsense, but I'm not going to log attended for them so it is - whatever.

 

And there is abundance of sock puppets / second / third or whatever accounts here, so it sort of a party game here speculating who might be the 'real' cacher behind them. Some socks are hiding power trails incognito to be able to log them under their primary account and sometimes someone gets unmasked accidentally, which indeed is funny to see. Some are logging hundreds of NA out of nothing, some log three caches and then 20 NA and start again with another nick. And then there are accounts for less sinister purposes like groups adopting certain caches or organizing events where it is known who is behind the nick. Then there are the mysterious puzzle owners nobody knows who they are and wild assumptions go round.

Edited September 15, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+Mudfrog]

Sounds to me that the issue really boils down to the use of a sock account to submit the Event in question, which makes it difficult for the OP to properly bully and harass this miscreant into submission.

 

Where did that come from? The OP asked a legitimate question. At first, it seems strange that guidelines are made but then there is inconsistency in how they are administered. But then we have to realize that, at their discretion, geocaching.com and reviewers can fudge or skirt those guidelines at any time because of this one little line that's also in the guidelines.

 

"Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches."

 

Bottom line is that if we choose to use the site, we need to not be so surprised when we perceive a cache/event breaking guidelines. Yes, we should contact gc.com or a reviewer if we think something is out of whack but after doing so, this is normally the point we need to end our concern.

 

On events with goofy ratings, just have fun and try not to worry about them. I know these show up in stats but they're easy to ignore if need be. Me personally, it was an easy decision not to even try to use event stats on the one or two fizzys that i did.

[+Touchstone]

This could be explained as a regional difference, where the issue is more acute.

 

No, in this case it cannot be explained that way. The uproar in the local community is partly based by many rejections in similar cases (unless the ratings got changed) by another reviewer.

 

which makes it difficult for the OP to properly bully and harass this miscreant into submission.

 

It's not at all about the OP. The debate started in a local forum (in German, with many participants) and the OP just asked for clarification in this forum based on a reply another cacher got as reply to a mail sent to GS. It's just that hardly any Austrian cachers use this forum and even less use it actively.

Now I'm confused. If another User had direct communication with Groundspeak on this issue, then this thread is even more pointless than I originally imagined. Why would someone come to the Forum when they already have the definitive answer?

 

Edit to add: You are absolutely correct Mudfrog, it was a legitimate question with many, many well thought out replies, including replies from a Mod who has more than a passing knowledge of the Guidelins and policies at Groundspeak. Then we are told that there was communication directly with Groundspeak from another User. Leaves me wondering what the agenda going on here is all about. Dislike of a particular user that hides behind a sock? Mistrust of Reviewers and/or Groundspeak in general. Who knows?

Edited September 15, 2016 by Touchstone

[cezanne]

Edit to add: You are absolutely correct Mudfrog, it was a legitimate question with many, many well thought out replies, including replies from a Mod who has more than a passing knowledge of the Guidelins and policies at Groundspeak. Then we are told that there was communication directly with Groundspeak from another User. Leaves me wondering what the agenda going on here is all about. Dislike of a particular user that hides behind a sock? Mistrust of Reviewers and/or Groundspeak in general. Who knows?

 

None of the things you mention applies. The question which was sent to GS was neither sent by the OP nor did it raise the same type of questions in the same manner. Moreover, the answer obtained by the person who asked was quite general and left the ones who got to see it in the forum (I was just told about it as I'm not member of that forum which is not open to the public) with many questions. They still wondered how it could be that sometimes events where the rating is clearly wrong are published in the same area (even the same city) when others where the rating was more appropriate in terms of the spirit of the event got their events rejected or had to comply with the reviewer's wish to rate it as 1/1.

I cannot become more specific without either breaking e-mail etiquettes (not forwarding contents of mails without explicit consent of the author) or getting accused of being disrespectful.

 

The fact that the event organizer is a most probably a sockpuppet account does not play an essential role in the questions asked.

 

Finally, believe whatever you wish to believe. I learnt in the time since I have got to know this forum (many years ago) that it's typically impossible to get things across in this forum in a manner that avoids complete misunderstandings with those who apply the Northamerican manner of viewing things. It might also be one of the reasons why the number of cachers from continental Europe who take actively part in the discussions is so small (much smaller than the number of cachers who are sufficiently proficient in English).

[cezanne]

Bottom line is that if we choose to use the site, we need to not be so surprised when we perceive a cache/event breaking guidelines. Yes, we should contact gc.com or a reviewer if we think something is out of whack but after doing so, this is normally the point we need to end our concern.

 

Bottom line is that I rather have a few events with goofy ratings as side effects and at the same time allow ratings like T=3* for a hiking event due to the length of the hike even when the easiest way to the lame meeting point is shorter than forcing the big majority of events to be 1/1.

 

What the OP is observed does not seem to be a special case that slipped through - the common thread rather seems that some reviewers insist on proper ratings for events and some apparently don't and the question is what is the official line of Groundspeak? Are the reviewers free to decide on their own if they insist or do not insist? If so, I think that it is quite unfortunate if that happens and in particular if in similar geographical areas different policies are used. That will ultimately always lead to unhappyness. Noone then knows in advance what to expect and whether it makes sense to apply for a certain type of event or whether everything is just a waste of time. Is that that difficult to understand?

Edited September 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+AnnaMoritz]

None of the questions in my first post were answered at all by the reaction another player got from HQ so I tried to get them answered here asking specifically

 

'Is there more than 'The D/T rating system is subjective and varies from community to community.' as Geocaching HQ suggests, if the owners don't react self-motivated to notes and NA?'

 

And some reviewers had real answers to my question. Thank you. The answer to the question is NO, which came somewhat surprising having in mind decisions regarding events in the past.

[+Mudfrog]

Bottom line is that if we choose to use the site, we need to not be so surprised when we perceive a cache/event breaking guidelines. Yes, we should contact gc.com or a reviewer if we think something is out of whack but after doing so, this is normally the point we need to end our concern.

 

Bottom line is that I rather have a few events with goofy ratings as side effects and at the same time allow ratings like T=3* for a hiking event due to the length of the hike even when the easiest way to the lame meeting point is shorter than forcing the big majority of events to be 1/1.

 

What the OP is observed does not seem to be a special case that slipped through - the common thread rather seems that some reviewers insist on proper ratings for events and some apparently don't and the question is what is the official line of Groundspeak? Are the reviewers free to decide on their own if they insist or do not insist? If so, I think that it is quite unfortunate if that happens and in particular if in similar geographical areas different policies are used. That will ultimately always lead to unhappyness. Noone then knows in advance what to expect and whether it makes sense to apply for a certain type of event or whether everything is just a waste of time. Is that that difficult to understand?

I do agree with you. While i think common sense should prevail and that cache owners should try to rate their caches correctly, it doesn't bother me to the extent it does others. My reply above was to just remind everyone that it doesn't really matter what we think. We can report a cache for a perceived guideline violation but once we do that, it's pretty much out of our hands. We can choose to sit and stew over it but the best thing to do is try and get on with other things.

 

And i agree wholeheartedly that inconsistency is a problem. Because there is a guideline specifically pertaining to this, all reviewers should insist on proper ratings for event caches. Better yet, to keep reviewers from having to deal with this, the submission form for an event cache should not even allow for a change in difficulty level.

[cezanne]

I remember when my son was younger, we'd get invited to these Birthday Parties that were excessively planned out. Kids being kids, it was chaos, and the uber-parents either got frustrated trying to herd the kids to the next planned activity, or they just embraced it, and let the kids run wild and have a good time. Sooner or later, people just have to embrace the chaos of getting a bunch of Cachers together. Like they say, go ahead and plan, but once the party starts, throw away the plan.

 

Sounds like that's the case with some of the people you describe.

 

It seems to me that we talk about different things. I do not care whether or not a certain person takes part in a scheduled activity - like say a certain game at an event - that's up to any individual.

 

The changes in the way which event get published and which not changed the events that take place in a much more profound manner.

 

To be honest, I would not have invested the time and effort to travel to the first ice skating event (more than 3.5 hours of travel in one direction from my home with public transportation) I took part in and I would not went through the emotional fight with myself and the anxiety and shame I felt (it was not easy to try skating again after so many years of absence and all what had happened inbetween) for an 1/1 event at the edge of an ice skating area where the activity one logs a log for is standing around for 30 minutes. There are others as well who felt motivated to go skating the first time after many years just by this special event. They would not have done so for a 1/1 0815 meet and greet which only offered the option to go skating afterwards (something one could theoretically do on any Winter day but many of us won't do). I could tell similar stories about other special events (e.g. some full moon hiking events) which motivated to do things I would not have done otherwise and to go outside of my comfort zone.

 

They have a certain way of doing things and are too regimented in their approach on how an Event should be run. Rather than adapt to the change, they just pick up their toys and go elsewhere. It's a pity, but I haven't seen much of a fall off in Events in my area due to the recent changes, only some small adjustments to accommodate the spirit of the Guidelines.

 

To sum up, I fully understand those who have previously organized such events and are not willing to do so any longer on gc.com. The suggested workaround for such events to announce an official dummy 30 minutes event that complies with the requirements and have the real activity outside of that frame, is like forbidding multi caches and mystery caches and only allow traditionals and argue that one can offer the puzzle and the additional stages in the cache description as an add-on for anyone who wants to go for that.

 

It also seems crazy to me to report e.g. the emotions I encountered during the first skating attempt after many years in a log for an 1/1 event which takes place at the edge of an ice skating area and where the official gc,com event is about standing around. Then the better solution in my eyes is not to organize such events at all which means that mainly those events remain that are intended as 1/1 events anyhow or those that really take place in remote areas.

[+The A-Team]

So I read it like now are new times where the reviewer says 'reconsider DT' and has to publish whatever the owner wants. Means: The above mentioned guidelines are only optional.

 

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'.

If a reviewer refuses to publish an Event because it isn't rated as a 1/1, the organizer can appeal that decision. This could lead to Groundspeak straightening out any misunderstandings on the part of the reviewer and bring them into line with the other reviewers.

[cezanne]

If a reviewer refuses to publish an Event because it isn't rated as a 1/1, the organizer can appeal that decision.

 

Actually it would feel quite strange to send off an appeal when it is apparent that when only taking the compulsory aspect of an event into account (which is just visiting GZ for a few seconds) T=1* or T=1.5* is the proper terrain rating and D=1* is an adequate D rating. The real issue is always what is thought of being part of the event.

I have not heard about a case where a reviewer insisted on T=1* for an event where there is no easy way to GZ.

 

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.

Edited September 15, 2016 by cezanne