THIS isn't "event stacking" now is it!

[+nthacker66]

LOL. Oh Groundspeak, your subjectivity is laughable at best!

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=69eb8534-b718-4b35-ae3c-a856a55b0874&lat=56.986567&lng=24.071400

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

First time I've seen geo-event-art!

 

 

Technically (based on Google translate) you can be at only one of the events. They appear to be all at the same time, and people go to one of the coordinates and holds a stack of balloons so they (in total) spell out MEGARIGA.

 

However, this shoud be one event, and people are given a spot to go to.

 

Oh, and it looks like it's on airport property! Hopefully permission was asked for and given!

[+nthacker66]

of course, there is always some loophole an exception given. too bad for a simple cito at a park after a couple of events to show goodwill to the park is considered "event stacking" but this isn't. LOL. Like signal, they just hope around from one meaning of a rule to the next! :-)

[4wheelin_fool]

Wow! Its being billed as the first mega event in the Baltic states!

[+nthacker66]

Ooo ooo I know - maybe if i if i published a ton of citos in the form of a trash t4ruck, it will be published! After all geo art and power trails are exempt from the guidelines! ;-)

 

(notice, this is all in fun)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

First time I've seen geo-event-art!

 

 

Technically (based on Google translate) you can be at only one of the events. They appear to be all at the same time, and people go to one of the coordinates and holds a stack of balloons so they (in total) spell out MEGARIGA.

 

However, this shoud be one event, and people are given a spot to go to.

 

Oh, and it looks like it's on airport property! Hopefully permission was asked for and given!

 

It will be interesting to see how many people log several of the events but it looks like it's not intended to be stacked events for the purposes of obtaining multiple logs, but rather several events were created in order to create the geo-art and provide specific locations for those attending to go. I could have been done as one event with multiple additional waypoints but that wouldn't have produced the geo-art.

 

I also wondered about the location and looked up the name of the airport and it appears that it's a *former* military and civilian airport (if you look at the satellite imagery you'll see there isn't a terminal or tower near the runway).

 

Whether or not it attains mega status depends on the number of attendees, right? I attended a WWFM IX event in Zurich last year and it apparently had logs for 480 people or so, just shy of the required 500. The event pages has links to several videos including this one:

 

When the horn went off were supposed to pretend like we were searching for a cache.

[+nthacker66]

"ke it's not intended to be stacked events for the purposes of obtaining multiple logs"

 

and vietnam wasn't a technically never a "war" - it was a conflict. ;-)

[4wheelin_fool]

I would prefer to find out what your beef at Groundspeak is, rather than debate some silly geoart event in Latvia which probably is not against the guidelines.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I would prefer to find out what your beef at Groundspeak is, rather than debate some silly geoart event in Latvia which probably is not against the guidelines.

 

I think this might shed some light:

 

There is in fact a reason I ask this. (Not my events) but a couple of good friends are holding a series of events - the original idea was this - 13 mile river paddle event. Followed by a cookout at the park we pull out at. Then a campout, then in the morning a breakfast event and finally a cito at the site and the ramp. The The cito and the cookout was denied because of "event stacking" which I do not agree with because they stand on their own merits. Not every cacher will want to nor able to attend all events.

 

They were denied on the "event stacking" as it appeared to be set up "just for smileys" Which to me, what do the smileys have to do with the reasoning?

[+bflentje]

I don't think the event geo-art is technically event stacking but the perception is there. And there are so many examples of hypocrisy and inconsistencies between what the reviewers allow and what Groundspeak does that I welcome having things like this pointed out to me.

[+nthacker66]

I don't think the event geo-art is technically event stacking but the perception is there. And there are so many examples of hypocrisy and inconsistencies between what the reviewers allow and what Groundspeak does that I welcome having things like this pointed out to me.

 

So very true. And as someone once said of Groundspeak - "They are guidelines, not rules"

[+tozainamboku]

Once again, since the guidelines seldom contain a rationale we can each decide why there is a event stacking guideline.

 

Seems there are a fair number who believe the purpose of the guideline is to prevent people from getting a whole bunch of smileys for attending what is essentially one event. I tend to discount this as TPTB have taken no action against events that allow multiple attended logs. It seems to me that TPTB do not view the find count as score and do not care if someone logs the same cache multiple times.

 

Instead, I believe that the purpose is to allow reviewers to exercise some judgement in publishing events to counter what TPTB saw as abuse of the listing service. The idea is that if you have one event you should only list it only once.

 

It does appear that the Latvian event is an exception. Perhaps it was given an exception since the idea was to form a flash mob with people in different spots to form some sort of human geo-art. That may have been seen as unique and novel enough to get an exception. I doubt this will be repeated often.

[+nthacker66]

Once again, since the guidelines seldom contain a rationale we can each decide why there is a event stacking guideline.

 

Seems there are a fair number who believe the purpose of the guideline is to prevent people from getting a whole bunch of smileys for attending what is essentially one event. I tend to discount this as TPTB have taken no action against events that allow multiple attended logs. It seems to me that TPTB do not view the find count as score and do not care if someone logs the same cache multiple times.

 

Instead, I believe that the purpose is to allow reviewers to exercise some judgement in publishing events to counter what TPTB saw as abuse of the listing service. The idea is that if you have one event you should only list it only once.

 

It does appear that the Latvian event is an exception. Perhaps it was given an exception since the idea was to form a flash mob with people in different spots to form some sort of human geo-art. That may have been seen as unique and novel enough to get an exception. I doubt this will be repeated often.

 

Again, the specter of subjectivity comes into play here. And yes, even favoritism. I have seen weekend events have multiple events surrounded around it, ending in a cito. I can understand not allowing this as the norm, but this isn;t the norm. It isn't like it is happening every weekend.

One would also think an "official" cito can only look good for Groundspeak, but I guess some reviewers do not think so - unless it is for their "friends"

 

or geoart.

[+tozainamboku]

I believe that the purpose is to allow reviewers to exercise some judgement in publishing events to counter what TPTB saw as abuse of the listing service.

 

Again, the specter of subjectivity comes into play here. And yes, even favoritism. I have seen weekend events have multiple events surrounded around it, ending in a cito. I can understand not allowing this as the norm, but this isn;t the norm. It isn't like it is happening every weekend.

One would also think an "official" cito can only look good for Groundspeak, but I guess some reviewers do not think so - unless it is for their "friends"

 

or geoart.

While most of us will accept that reviewers can exercise some judgment and that they do it it without favortism, invariably when it is your submission (or that of a close friend) that gets denied, the reviewers are arbitrary and unfair. Rather than having to deal with their motives being questioned, the reviewers will push for guidelines that leave no room for judgement. We end up with "power trails". It's likely that at some point the quidelines will get changed to specify an arbitrary distance/time between event listings. Geo-art events like the one in Lativia would not get published while someone wanting a paddle trip, cookout, and CITO event simply will schedule them to meet the guidelines - just as power-trail caches are exactly 528 feet apart.

[+snow_rules]

And how are they a 2/3? Shouldn't be too hard to find and the terrain looks flat

[+cerberus1]

Looks like meant for a group to make art, but so far the same two list they are "attending" all.

- Guess afterwards will show if it is stacked or not.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Looks like meant for a group to make art, but so far the same two list they are "attending" all.

- Guess afterwards will show if it is stacked or not.

 

Actually if you look at http://coord.info/GC47P5V there are 40 will attend logs but only 2-3 people have posted will attend logs on more than one in the group. I suspect that there will be a few people that will try to post Attended logs on all of them but we'll see if the cache owner allows them to remain

 

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

This seems ridiculous.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This seems ridiculous.

 

Why? I bet that those that do attend will have fun and even though there are a bunch of WWFM event caches that doesn't mean one has to post an Attended log for all (or any, for that matter) of them.

 

 

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Decided to link instead of bump this . Once again, it's not a huge issue now, but I do see Geo-art as an abuse of the resources of Groundspeak and misaligned with the spirit of Geocaching.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Decided to link instead of bump this . Once again, it's not a huge issue now, but I do see Geo-art as an abuse of the resources of Groundspeak and misaligned with the spirit of Geocaching.

 

I agree. Geo-art may look cool on the map, but once one is on the ground actually finding the caches I just don't see how it adds to the experience and, to me, just looks like an excuse to play a lot of caches.

 

 

[+Walts Hunting]

Decided to link instead of bump this . Once again, it's not a huge issue now, but I do see Geo-art as an abuse of the resources of Groundspeak and misaligned with the spirit of Geocaching.

 

AHHH here we go again with the "spirit of geocaching." Who gets to decide what it is?

 

There is no spirit of geocaching. The hobby has evolved (as all things do) and will continue too. It will be different in 5 years and even more so 10 years from now.

 

What does it matter to anybody except those who participate in a particular style of this hobby what someone else thinks the the spirit is.

 

If everyone would go about enjoying what they like about the hobby and ignoring what they don't the spirit of geocaching would be rest easy.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Walts Hunting

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

Now THAT should be against the rules (guidelines...whatever) if it isn't. But that is just my opinion.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

[+nthacker66]

Decided to link instead of bump this . Once again, it's not a huge issue now, but I do see Geo-art as an abuse of the resources of Groundspeak and misaligned with the spirit of Geocaching.

 

AHHH here we go again with the "spirit of geocaching." Who gets to decide what it is?

 

 

Apparently the reviewers get to decide. And yes, there is favoritism whether you want to accept it or not. I have een to many events that had citos afterwards - i can cite them if you'd like. Which AGAIN, we are not looking to rack up smileys for people. So it isn't "stacking" which I honestly have yet to find it in any guidelines.

[+nthacker66]

plus i can cite several events, even close to this particular reviewer's area (though not reviewed by the same reviewer) that have events "stacked" - several paddle events on the same day on the same lake. Coming back to the point the subjectivity of reviewers makes it hard to enjoy placing caches, events, etc. especially when you see the exact same things happening elsewhere, but when you try it - no no, not allowed. And again, it isn't like anyone is trying to stack up event smileys.

[AZcachemeister]

This seems ridiculous.

 

Why? I bet that those that do attend will have fun and even though there are a bunch of WWFM event caches that doesn't mean one has to post an Attended log for all (or any, for that matter) of them.

 

It IS ridiculous.

 

Why?

 

Because 'geo-art' in general is ridiculous.

 

Because if it's supposed to be a 'flash mob', it's should be in a place to catch others (un-involved people) off guard and enthrall them...not out in the middle of some desolate field where nobody will notice.

 

Can't say how the 'event stacking' aspect will turn out, but the whole thing DOES seem to be teetering dangerously close to the edge. If I were the reviewer and I had been told that 'event stacking' was verboten, I surely wouldn't have published more than one of these.

[+nthacker66]

This seems ridiculous.

 

Why? I bet that those that do attend will have fun and even though there are a bunch of WWFM event caches that doesn't mean one has to post an Attended log for all (or any, for that matter) of them.

 

It IS ridiculous.

 

Why?

 

Because 'geo-art' in general is ridiculous.

 

Because if it's supposed to be a 'flash mob', it's should be in a place to catch others (un-involved people) off guard and enthrall them...not out in the middle of some desolate field where nobody will notice.

 

Can't say how the 'event stacking' aspect will turn out, but the whole thing DOES seem to be teetering dangerously close to the edge. If I were the reviewer and I had been told that 'event stacking' was verboten, I surely wouldn't have published more than one of these.

 

Thank you, which comes back to my point that these guidelines are just that - guidelines that seem to give reviewers a lot of leeway for their own judgement - which leads to unfairness in what gets published.

[+nthacker66]

what bothers me the most is the reviewer nor did the "appeals" have the courtesy to cite any guidelines. It was "just because we feel like not publishing"

 

To add - I will say most reviewers are fair and do exercise objectivity. I want to make that clear. I am just very surprised at Groundspeak for how they responded to this.

Edited April 26, 2013 by nthacker66

[+The A-Team]

There is no spirit of geocaching.

Sure there is!

 

[+The A-Team]

what bothers me the most is the reviewer nor did the "appeals" have the courtesy to cite any guidelines.

That's because the "no event stacking" guideline isn't published for everyone to see or for reviewers to cite. It's just another of those undocumented guidelines, like "no Facebook links on cache listings". Since it's undocumented, we have no idea what it actually says and the reviewer can have it say whatever fits their purpose. If Groundspeak documented it along with all the other guidelines, the reviewers would then be able to apply it more consistently and we wouldn't see as many contradictions like what you've described.

[+Maingray]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.". Open to interpretation per case, and hopefully tightened up one day.

[+The A-Team]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.".

Yep, that's as close as it gets, but not quite close enough. AFAICT, that guideline seems to be covering the case of multiple satellite events associated with a Mega event, like these. It doesn't say anything like "Thou shalt not hold multiple events in a small area in a short period of time".

[4wheelin_fool]

plus i can cite several events, even close to this particular reviewer's area (though not reviewed by the same reviewer) that have events "stacked" - several paddle events on the same day on the same lake. Coming back to the point the subjectivity of reviewers makes it hard to enjoy placing caches, events, etc. especially when you see the exact same things happening elsewhere, but when you try it - no no, not allowed. And again, it isn't like anyone is trying to stack up event smileys.

 

I can see guidelines being bent in a foreign country for some silly geoart, but if your reviewer is publishing events for his buddies, but denying the same to you, it doesnt sound right, and definitely isn't in any spirit of geocaching to foster small cliques like that. Frankly, in most of your posting, you seem to have a beef at Groundspeak and I've wondered what really caused that. I don't think that Groundspeak is purposely at fault, but rather your reviewer sounds biased. However without posting examples, it's nothing but vague hints and groundless allegations. Let us see which ones they are.

[+Walts Hunting]

There is no spirit of geocaching.

Sure there is!

 

[+Walts Hunting]

Live it my favorite cartoon

K

[+nthacker66]

plus i can cite several events, even close to this particular reviewer's area (though not reviewed by the same reviewer) that have events "stacked" - several paddle events on the same day on the same lake. Coming back to the point the subjectivity of reviewers makes it hard to enjoy placing caches, events, etc. especially when you see the exact same things happening elsewhere, but when you try it - no no, not allowed. And again, it isn't like anyone is trying to stack up event smileys.

 

I can see guidelines being bent in a foreign country for some silly geoart, but if your reviewer is publishing events for his buddies, but denying the same to you, it doesnt sound right, and definitely isn't in any spirit of geocaching to foster small cliques like that. Frankly, in most of your posting, you seem to have a beef at Groundspeak and I've wondered what really caused that. I don't think that Groundspeak is purposely at fault, but rather your reviewer sounds biased. However without posting examples, it's nothing but vague hints and groundless allegations. Let us see which ones they are.

 

You are correct, I do have a beef with Groundspeak over this because they are backing up the reviewer. The beef comes in with two things #1 - I got a canned response from a lackey #2 I asked thr lackey to speak to the reviewer for his/her snarky and condescending remark in their denial. Groundspeak will not follow up - they did the same thing with another person. One and done.

 

As I said before, Groundspeak provides a decent product - I just think their customer service sucks. Too much starbucks drinking i guess ;-)

 

(And no, i am not saying their customer service sucks because I didnt get my way - its more or less they are not in communication with me when I have made a case, citing other similar events, asking them to cite why they will not allow this, etc. - and multiple other occasions trying to get some answers out of them for other things. Which all leads me to be less than impressed with their cust. service. But I will still buy them a case of beer every year for $30 because again, they offer a very nice product).

Edited April 26, 2013 by nthacker66

[+nthacker66]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.". Open to interpretation per case, and hopefully tightened up one day.

 

Thanks MG - this goes to the core of what is really on my mind - consistency.

[Clan Riffster]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.". Open to interpretation per case, and hopefully tightened up one day.

Careful what you wish for. In most cases, when a set of rules is 'tightened up', the end result is an increase in verbiage.

Given a choice between a set of fairly easy to understand guidelines which have a slight degree of flexibility built into their interpretation, (which might not always go my way, leaving me with the option of either accepting the interpretation or pouting for months on end), or a set of rules which carefully define every conceivable situation, and are 80 gazillion pages long, in a language only a team of lawyers could possibly understand, I'll take the guidelines, every time.

[+Maingray]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.". Open to interpretation per case, and hopefully tightened up one day.

Careful what you wish for. In most cases, when a set of rules is 'tightened up', the end result is an increase in verbiage.

Given a choice between a set of fairly easy to understand guidelines which have a slight degree of flexibility built into their interpretation, (which might not always go my way, leaving me with the option of either accepting the interpretation or pouting for months on end), or a set of rules which carefully define every conceivable situation, and are 80 gazillion pages long, in a language only a team of lawyers could possibly understand, I'll take the guidelines, every time.

 

With you there, Mr Riffster. I think the common sense rule applies to most stacked events; text book example, a CITO tagged on to clean up / near a larger event has quite a high threshold to pass. I still think a modicum of extra language is needed. The guidelines as they are seem to encourage splitting up more than one event, or at least you should attempt to ("For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if..."). That needs some changing, in my opinion.

[+nthacker66]

The closest "stacking" Guidelines are at http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#event , "For caching events with several elements, multiple event listings may be submitted if each element stands on its own merits as an event, and meets the listing guidelines.". Open to interpretation per case, and hopefully tightened up one day.

Careful what you wish for. In most cases, when a set of rules is 'tightened up', the end result is an increase in verbiage.

Given a choice between a set of fairly easy to understand guidelines which have a slight degree of flexibility built into their interpretation, (which might not always go my way, leaving me with the option of either accepting the interpretation or pouting for months on end), or a set of rules which carefully define every conceivable situation, and are 80 gazillion pages long, in a language only a team of lawyers could possibly understand, I'll take the guidelines, every time.

 

 

I wonder where in the current guidelines, the cito a couple hours after the breakfast away from the camp site at the boat ramp, is in violation? I fail to see how it doesn't stand on its own merit. Its a cito, at a part of the park that needs cleaning up.

 

The "event stacking" is in the eye of the beholder of the reviewer. The first event. On a saturday morning - is 13 miles away. Then later that evening is ac campout/cookout. Then in the morning a breakfast. Those are all published. Each event stands on its own merit - different places and times. The cito is a different event at a different place and time - so again, not only am I confused how this is against that guideline - but neither the reviewer nor Groundspeak will give me a reason other than "we feel this is event stacking" - again which would be perfectly fine if they "believed" this for other events they allowed to stand.

 

And again, what is going on with this series of event is really no different than what other groups have done. Without a clear and concise answer - all I can do is speculate that this particular reviewer doesn't like the event holders. Not to mention, how nasty this reviewer responded to them and then to me.

 

And I agree with MG - this is why the language needs to be there. As I have been saying in this thread - this leaves too much subjectivity to its interpretation. So when you see some events being allowed and others not - you can see where this pee's people off. And Groundspeak being zip lipped about this isn't helping.

Edited April 26, 2013 by nthacker66

[+Mudfrog]

Unfortunately, lacking consistency is something that Groundspeak is known for. I figure some of it occurs because of hard to interpret guidelines. Some of the guidelines are just not specific enough. Of course there's also the old clause, "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches", which is the fall back that works in many cases.

 

Still, it's hard to believe that the events mentioned in the original post got published. Imo, those are a good example of event stacking at it's finest!

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...#2 I asked thr lackey to speak to the reviewer for his/her snarky and condescending remark in their denial. Groundspeak will not follow up - they did the same thing with another person. One and done.

 

all I can do is speculate that this particular reviewer doesn't like the event holders. Not to mention, how nasty this reviewer responded to them and then to me.

 

I've seen the way you react to people on the forums, here, and I'm not convinced the reviewer said anything particularly snarky. You want us to accept this accusation on the merits of your own judgement, not an actual quote, but I don't think that's quite fair. Also, speculating about a reviewer's motives (or anyone's) on an open forum like this is just gossip. I don't like it. I wish you would stop. You had a good opening point, and I agreed with you, then, but you're losing me, now.

[+nthacker66]

No need to take my word for it - i will post the reviewers response later - but this reviewer has also been rude to others.

 

And I am offended - I've said nothing in this thread that is particularly rude nor aggressive. Whether it is taboo or not to question Groundspeak/reviewers is another story. They are humans too and if people feel a fear of retaliation for questioning their policies - that is pretty sad.

 

And I apologize if I come off as aggressive online - words lave much to be desired when you do not have the body language and voice tone available to effectively communicate. That is just me online.

Edited April 26, 2013 by nthacker66

[4wheelin_fool]

No need to take my word for it - i will post the reviewers response later - but this reviewer has also been rude to others.

 

And I am offended - I've said nothing in this thread that is particularly rude nor aggressive. Whether it is taboo or not to question Groundspeak/reviewers is another story. They are humans too and if people feel a fear of retaliation for questioning their policies - that is pretty sad.

 

And I apologize if I come off as aggressive online - words lave much to be desired when you do not have the body language and voice tone available to effectively communicate. That is just me online.

 

It's nice to see some humility. Still waiting for the local examples of stacked events and rude comments though.

[Clan Riffster]

The "event stacking" is in the eye of the beholder of the reviewer.

Of course it is. Any guideline, created with a degree of flexibility, will be subject to interpretation, and the person doing the interpreting is the beholder/Reviewer. You see this as a bad thing. I remember my employee manuals from my days working for Mickey Rat, which were almost too heavy to carry without a furniture dolley, because they tried to write them without room for judgement, covering every possible scenario, and I see those minor inconsistencies as a blessing in disguise.

[+nthacker66]

The "event stacking" is in the eye of the beholder of the reviewer.

Of course it is. Any guideline, created with a degree of flexibility, will be subject to interpretation, and the person doing the interpreting is the beholder/Reviewer. You see this as a bad thing. I remember my employee manuals from my days working for Mickey Rat, which were almost too heavy to carry without a furniture dolley, because they tried to write them without room for judgement, covering every possible scenario, and I see those minor inconsistencies as a blessing in disguise.

 

i see this as a bad thing when it is abused, yes

 

and 4 wheelin, i am not posting private conversations in public forums. but i will cite examples of events published that are very similar to what we tried to do.

[+lamoracke]

Well, this is all moot now, the multiple events are now gone.

 

At least that I can tell.

Edited April 29, 2013 by lamoracke

[+nthacker66]

Well, this is all moot now, the multiple events are now gone.

 

At least that I can tell.

 

Nah, it isn't moot at all. That was just an example.

 

I have no problem going around and around on this topic until Groundspeak addresses it. As MG said, they need to be more specific other than "an event must be able to stand on its own merits" - all i say is define the merits. Don't put the reviewers into a spot to have that much room for subjectivity - because it does leave too much room for the perception of unfairness.

[+ArtieD]

I have no problem going around and around on this topic until Groundspeak addresses it.

 

I am just going to leave this here in advance.

 

[+nthacker66]

I have no problem going around and around on this topic until Groundspeak addresses it.

 

I am just going to leave this here in advance.

 

 

2300+ posts to my 400+....nuff said