Talk:2010-02-11 34.52 -110.10 (Unofficial)
Page name
I've just come across this page. My instinct is that, even though you are using an alternative algorithm to generate the coordinates, it should still be titled "2010-02-11 34 -110". But I don't think we've ever had an actual expedition using an alternative algorithm before (someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure). What do others think? -- Benjw 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just think that alternative algorithms should not be used. It might be a great trip totally worth the effort, but it's not a geohashing expedition if you go somewhere else. So it definitely shouldn't be named or categorized as a geohashing expedition either. --Ekorren 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point, and I certainly agree that it wasn't a successful geohash, but I don't know if we should simply dismiss them out of hand. This was clearly a 'practice' expedition by someone who lacked the capability of actually going to the day's coordinates, so he entered into the spirit of the thing rather than just sitting at home. If you look at his user page, he went on a proper expedition the following day. Besides, what's the difference between this and using a graticule-nominated official alternative meetup point, which we accept as far as the xkcd meetup ribbons go? -- Benjw 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- The difference is simple, and strong: The alternate meetup locations are made for, and restricted to, actual meetups where several geohashers meet at another point in case the actual geohash is not possible to reach for them and the meetup would have to be cancelled otherwise. Also the point has to be announced in advance, and preferrably be determined by common agreement. This wasn't a meetup, and it wasn't a geohash.
- If Eylrid feels up to report of that trip, so be it, and I feel perfectly well with the report being on the wiki and linked from the user page. However, it certainly wasn't a geohashing expedition and so I would prefer it not being categorized as such. --Ekorren 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point. Presumably, then, you would prefer it if the page remained, but that none of the categories currently in use were to remain. (The map would have to be removed, but it's pretty useless on this page anyway.) -- Benjw 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to choose a reasonable set of categories to remain, so I'd indeed prefer to remove them all. Or, maybe, introduce some category for reports on unofficial trips? User:Aperfectring/Trip could go in there as well. --Ekorren 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Creating a new category seems a sensible way of going about it. A bit more sensible, in my opinion than Jiml classifying it as a retro expedition, anyway. :-) -- Benjw 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to choose a reasonable set of categories to remain, so I'd indeed prefer to remove them all. Or, maybe, introduce some category for reports on unofficial trips? User:Aperfectring/Trip could go in there as well. --Ekorren 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point. Presumably, then, you would prefer it if the page remained, but that none of the categories currently in use were to remain. (The map would have to be removed, but it's pretty useless on this page anyway.) -- Benjw 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point, and I certainly agree that it wasn't a successful geohash, but I don't know if we should simply dismiss them out of hand. This was clearly a 'practice' expedition by someone who lacked the capability of actually going to the day's coordinates, so he entered into the spirit of the thing rather than just sitting at home. If you look at his user page, he went on a proper expedition the following day. Besides, what's the difference between this and using a graticule-nominated official alternative meetup point, which we accept as far as the xkcd meetup ribbons go? -- Benjw 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Any geohasher can empathize with the enthusiasm that drove him on this expedition, and he did do his best to document it without claiming it was a real expedition. I would compare it a little bit to my attempt on a snow and boulder-covered slope in Squamish where I redefined success as getting to within a kilometre of the geohash. I might categorize and name it as a normal expedition in that graticule, under Not Reached - Did not attempt, except that it would encourage and confuse copycats who don't understand the promlem as well as this new geohasher clearly does. Probably the best thing to do with it is to put it on a user sub-page, and give it an Category:Alternate algorithm category, or some new one for unofficial trips. It is TERRIBLY frustrating to be a new geohasher with no way of geohashing, and I don't want anyone bashed for trying to make the best of it. -Robyn 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd broadly agree with that. So how about moving this page to something like User:Eylrid/2010-02-11, removing all the expedition categories (and the [useless] map) and replacing them with Category:Alternate algorithm? Any other ideas? -- Benjw 17:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wait a bit for Eylrid to come back, goggle at all the attention, and then do something like that him/herself? :-) I dunno. I hate these. -Robyn 18:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I object to calling the new category Alternate algorithm for two main reasons:
- I don't want to promote alternate algorithms, and if there was a designated category for such expeditions, that would make them look more legitimate.
- I would definitely like to see other reports of geohashers in such a category, whether they involve some algorithm or not (like aperfectrings report)
- However, I don't think this page here needs to be renamed. I just needs to be stripped of the template and categories which classify it as a geohashing expedition, and then categorized as "Unofficial expedition" or "Other reports" or whatever the category is to be called. --Ekorren 22:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- If there's ever any discussion about knocking down your house, and the discussion gets long and seems to be asymptotically approaching a consensus of yes, but you just can't decide exactly when or in which direction, you should probably make sure I'm not sitting nearby on top of a bulldozer. Is there a way to put a map on the page to where he went? -Robyn 22:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I found a option on graticule template so it won't generate the categories, but we do get the map, or at least the "official" map. Jiml 23:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does the meetup graticule template do any more than categories (which are now suppressed) and the map and coordinates (which are wrong)? I always will prefer "no information" before "wrong information", so I think the map should go as well, which results in the template doing nothing at all, which means the template could go without any loss. Or someone could hack a new template where you set the coordinates yourself instead of calculating them from date and graticule? --Ekorren 09:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed it for now. If a map with manually-set coordinates becomes available, that can be added instead. -- Benjw 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does the meetup graticule template do any more than categories (which are now suppressed) and the map and coordinates (which are wrong)? I always will prefer "no information" before "wrong information", so I think the map should go as well, which results in the template doing nothing at all, which means the template could go without any loss. Or someone could hack a new template where you set the coordinates yourself instead of calculating them from date and graticule? --Ekorren 09:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
