Difference between revisions of "Talk:Largest geohash achievement"
From Geohashing
imported>Juventas (happy medium?) |
imported>Juventas (adding title to previous discussion and adding to new one) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | ===Defining minimum, scope, and result=== | ||
It seems many (like me), aren't aware of this achievement. It's also not very well-defined. It seems you do not need to reach the coordinates, and that taking a virgin graticule would count, or taking a friend to one where before it was only done alone would count. | It seems many (like me), aren't aware of this achievement. It's also not very well-defined. It seems you do not need to reach the coordinates, and that taking a virgin graticule would count, or taking a friend to one where before it was only done alone would count. | ||
| − | I'd like to change it to five or more participants and reaching the coordinates as requirements. I don't think this would conflict with the ones already listed there. Support? -[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | + | I'd like to change it to five or more participants and reaching the coordinates as requirements. I don't think this would conflict with the ones already listed there. Support? |
| + | --[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
: I am in favour. --[[User:Fasanen|Fasanen]] 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | : I am in favour. --[[User:Fasanen|Fasanen]] 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| Line 10: | Line 12: | ||
:::You didn't misread it: I missed that point. I added a tidbit of text to try to make it clearer. I think part of the problem is that more care is needed to distinguish between "worldwide" records and records for a single graticule. [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | :::You didn't misread it: I missed that point. I added a tidbit of text to try to make it clearer. I think part of the problem is that more care is needed to distinguish between "worldwide" records and records for a single graticule. [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I also support making a minimum of 5 people for this to count. [[User:jschleappi|jschleappi]] 16 September 2010 | ||
Should we perhaps do the global (or local ones, even) as "reset each year" to allow others to "win" this after the huge burst of people in 2008?? [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | Should we perhaps do the global (or local ones, even) as "reset each year" to allow others to "win" this after the huge burst of people in 2008?? [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I don't think we should reset it. There are only a few graticules that experienced the early surge of participants. I would be in favour of reorganizing the winners table. We could also do something to highlight the global winners for each year. -[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | :I don't think we should reset it. There are only a few graticules that experienced the early surge of participants. I would be in favour of reorganizing the winners table. We could also do something to highlight the global winners for each year. -[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have now added the minimum of 5 participants and I don't think anybody would ever taking this achievement for less anyway... I don't support to reset the achievements, because most graticules can still get it, especially with mobilizing a lot of drag-alongs! --[[User:HiroProtagonist|HiroProtagonist]] 01:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===GEOHASHING DAY 2011 EXTRAVAGANZA=== | ||
| + | Should this event count for the badge? I honestly think it should not, because even if there were to be yearly winners this would always top the list. ''OR'' it could be a new achievement in the making, whoever gets enough Geohashers to join and top the extravaganza would get it, a noteworthy badge.--[[User:Hewhoamareismyself|Hewhoamareismyself]] 21:24, 20 January 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | :Why - of course it should. That's the whole point of the exercise! And I still doubt that we have the same potential of attraction that Randall has. -- [[User:relet|relet]] 04:42, 21 January 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | ::I hope not, being from that graticule I don't want to lose that award :P --[[User:Hewhoamareismyself|Hewhoamareismyself]] 13:49, 22 January 2011 (EST) | ||
| + | :The focus of the event seems to be the people, not the date. They should definitely have a chance at it. [[Vancouver, British Columbia|Vancouver]] doesn't like the season that geohashing day happens to be in, but they could possibly pull a bigger turnout in the summer. It also provides a little motivation for the event to change graticules each year. --[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 02:52, 28 February 2011 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 07:52, 28 February 2011
Defining minimum, scope, and result
It seems many (like me), aren't aware of this achievement. It's also not very well-defined. It seems you do not need to reach the coordinates, and that taking a virgin graticule would count, or taking a friend to one where before it was only done alone would count.
I'd like to change it to five or more participants and reaching the coordinates as requirements. I don't think this would conflict with the ones already listed there. Support? --Juventas 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am in favour. --Fasanen 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am favor of setting a minimum of 5 people, though I don't see why that is needed since the number is now up around 26. We might want to set the minimum based on the number of geohashers around like the sociable geohasher award. I don't favor requiring reaching the hashpoint, but I would encourage it. Jiml 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I misread, it's per graticule. Boston getting 26 wouldn't effect the other graticules. -Juventas 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- You didn't misread it: I missed that point. I added a tidbit of text to try to make it clearer. I think part of the problem is that more care is needed to distinguish between "worldwide" records and records for a single graticule. Jiml 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I also support making a minimum of 5 people for this to count. jschleappi 16 September 2010
Should we perhaps do the global (or local ones, even) as "reset each year" to allow others to "win" this after the huge burst of people in 2008?? Jiml 01:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should reset it. There are only a few graticules that experienced the early surge of participants. I would be in favour of reorganizing the winners table. We could also do something to highlight the global winners for each year. -Juventas 07:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I have now added the minimum of 5 participants and I don't think anybody would ever taking this achievement for less anyway... I don't support to reset the achievements, because most graticules can still get it, especially with mobilizing a lot of drag-alongs! --HiroProtagonist 01:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
GEOHASHING DAY 2011 EXTRAVAGANZA
Should this event count for the badge? I honestly think it should not, because even if there were to be yearly winners this would always top the list. OR it could be a new achievement in the making, whoever gets enough Geohashers to join and top the extravaganza would get it, a noteworthy badge.--Hewhoamareismyself 21:24, 20 January 2011 (EST)
- Why - of course it should. That's the whole point of the exercise! And I still doubt that we have the same potential of attraction that Randall has. -- relet 04:42, 21 January 2011 (EST)
- I hope not, being from that graticule I don't want to lose that award :P --Hewhoamareismyself 13:49, 22 January 2011 (EST)
- The focus of the event seems to be the people, not the date. They should definitely have a chance at it. Vancouver doesn't like the season that geohashing day happens to be in, but they could possibly pull a bigger turnout in the summer. It also provides a little motivation for the event to change graticules each year. --Juventas 02:52, 28 February 2011 (EST)
