Talk:False start consolation prize

It is particularly frustrating, to be sure, but does such a specified case really need a consolation prize? Can't you just go with a Gratuitous ribbon? Therefore Do not oppose leaning towards oppose --HiroProtagonist 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (P.S. What is the Potsdam datum???)

Yes I could, but I know of at least two other people affected by this. One was hashing with me, the other one had it happening to him independently (and quite a while ago). Also, it is seriously meant to alleviate the frustration, should this happen to anyone else again, because I was very down after realizing it.
Oh, and the Potsdam datum is (as Ekorren put it) "one way of dealing with the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere", just not the customary one for modern-day applications. Check it out on Wikipedia! --mtu 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

But does a special consolation prize for this really alleviate the frustration more than a gratuitous ribbon plus an existing consolation prize? --HiroProtagonist 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is basically a blinded by science case gone horribly wrong. I would probably make me a scarred by science consolation gratuitous ribbon for perseverance, if that happened to me. On the other hand, any gratuitous ribbon claimed by three people already deserves maybe a bit of an explicit definition. Tis a dno for me. --relet

I have no problem with this ribbon, and i think it would cover all sorts of 'that's actually a FAIL! due to inexperience' circumstances. I can see how it would be something that is much more important for beginning hashers, even while it may seem a bit superfluous to experienced hashers. I can also see how it would encourage newer hashers to accept expeditions as failures when they might otherwise be reluctant to. Also: it's a nice fun monument to ongoing failure DNO --mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 23:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Would this apply for geohashers who use one method of deciding "reaching the geohash", and discover later that it's invalid? For example, go to the closest address (because that's the "coordinate" they get), and find out later they really need to get within 10 meters/0.0001 degrees/GPS error range?
Also, I thought this was for geohashes where you start the expedition expecting the geohash to be in one location, and find out on the way there that it's a completely different location ("Well, now we don't need the canoe.") -- Jevanyn 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it, your first example would qualify, while your second one would not. Going to the wrong coordinates consistently on your first N≥2 geohashes (for whichever reason) is exactly what this is about. Using the wrong means of transportation doesn't directly qualify, unless that would have made you unable to reach the hashes ("We can't crawl under that bridge with the canoe.") --mtu 19:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like it better if it was more about the nothing-goes-right periods that all of us have from time to time, but this incident does seem to have affected a few people and maybe it will encourage a brand-new geohasher after a major mishap. DNO Jiml 03:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with HiroProtagonist, specific case, probably will only apply to very few cases, oppose -- Mampfred 12:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general sentiment above about this being its own consolation prize. It seems like yours was multiple "blinded by science" consolations, so oppose as is. However, I do think it is important to try to encourage people who have come across hard times, or who live in hard-to-geohash graticules to keep at it. Perhaps we could morph this into a graduated consolation prize for "x thwarted expeditions in a row" and have a somewhat stricter definition of what "thwarted" means in this case. My opinion for such requirements are:

• Must start off believing that you can make it to the point (hard to prove for sure, but a point miles upon miles into a swamp likely won't count unless you make it relatively close)
• You must attempt to make it to the hashpoint from multiple directions if it is terrain stopping you, or prove that there is no realistic way to get there, and no way you could have known that when starting out.
• Being thwarted by time constraints does not count. You should have planned ahead for more time.
• Any expedition which doesn't meet all of these requirements breaks the chain.
• And at least one of the following:
  • Must make it a significant portion of the distance to the hashpoint
  • Must have had an equipment failure preventing you from continuing
  • It must have been unsafe for you to continue to the hashpoint
  • You went to the wrong point due to technical or personal knowledge failure. You shouldn't become aware of your mistake until you get back.

I'm not sure that's fully defined yet. Feel free to add/remove/change stuff. --aperfectring 15:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I support as it is, because sometimes the rules are fuzzy as well. It was months into geohashing when I discovered the GPS accuracy page. I can totally understand how someone might think they are starting out and doing good while accumulating a chain of fail. Splitdipless 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I oppose. I think it's too much of a corner case and well covered by a "blinded by science" in spades. --Fasanen 21:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a n00b at this geohashing game, at the moment, but FWIW I tend towards an oppose under my understanding of the original suggestion, on the grounds that 'hard cases make bad laws'. There's already the flexible "Is it true..?" award and similar for not-quite awards (and I put an "Averted" section on my own User pages for things that weren't even within that scope, being careful to avoid using any actual Ribbon code while doing so to avoid being inadvertently catalogued). If something specific for the mentioned occasions is actually needed, I'm more inclined towards something such as a "Good Faith" ribbon. The idea behind this is that if someone finds that a set of claims are retrospectively (and consistently) incorrect, the "Good Faith" award draws a line under those claims without actually removing the original 'credits'. Of course, future claims can't make the same mistake. (Although I can't see a reason why there can't be a different error of understanding/interpretation/etc that arises or continues until brought to an end by a completely new Good Faith instance.) I see this mostly as something awarded by a more experienced (or at least accurate) geohasher to a less experienced(/accurate) one once they've met up, the problem has come to light and mutually resolved. But self-awarding of a Good Faith would be possible under the same honour-system as already 'accepted' the problematic claims, where GeohasherX suddenly finds their own error. But this idea of mine probably needs work, anyway. Especially if anyone feels the need to add some form of "This has been Good Faith Invalidated" flagging to each and every possible affected achievement. --Monty 08:44, 7 February 2011 (EST)

Strongly oppose "approximately {{{timelost}}} of lifetime" - it is not loss to make fine trip and discover that it does not count toward counters/ribbons on extremely niche website! Oppose extremely narrow award, covered by Radio Yerevan mkoniecz 16:13, 23 July 2012 (EDT)