Talk:Geohashing Day 2011 Extravaganza

Voting system

Now that I re-read the rules and thought about it I see that the voting system may be all shiny and geeky but I see some flaws in the setup.

• IMHO, a large GH meetup should rather try to be large than to be epic but small. I have a certain feeling that this system will result in an epic fail of a small group.
• Please add information how unrated options are counted. Worst/best/don't care? Because people seem to only rate locations they might like, which in case of "don't care" would effectively put the lower rated below the unrated.
• Please allow to change votes

I'm tempted to add more locations only to break the ban of reconsidering. --Ekorren 06:38, 11 January 2011 (EST)

• I agree with you on the large vs epic issue. But I guess this choice is part of everyone's vote. (Ideally it should be large and epic!) If by "fail" you mean "risk that we fail to reach the coordinates", I think it's not a big deal, as long as we have fun doing an expedition with a bunch of incredible people. If you mean "only a small group" I think it's not an issue neither, since if we assume that people will vote for a place where they would be likely to attend, the one with the most votes should be the one with the largest group. Of course if a lot of people who do not plan to attend in any case vote it could be different.
• The ranking system is described here. But I haven't studied it yet so I can't answer your question. (and hence I haven't voted yet :o)
• I guess you could add "Himalayas" as option "I" and revote.

--Crox 07:06, 11 January 2011 (EST)

• As I understand it, we do not actually vote on where we want or would attend but on where we'd like the meetup to be. I can and should rank places where I won't attend in any case. If person X would attend in only one location, and person Y in 5 of them, X will base the rating among the undesired ones on other criteria, and I expect this effect to prefer "epic" regions to such where many people will attend.
• I just looked it up. The system assumes that options not rated are considered least wanted, i.e. A>B>C=D ist the same as A>B. Should be noted in the explanation, though.
• Bavaria is missing in the list as well, isn't it? When I added Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria as suggestions I did it in one line because the pros and cons are basically the same, not because I consider it being one location.

--Ekorren 07:41, 11 January 2011 (EST)

• I will clarify, people should only vote for locations they can attend. They should rank the ones they can attend by how much they want the location to be there.
• We can add a location in Bavaria, please give a central graticule, and it will be added to the list.

--aperfectring 10:16, 11 January 2011 (EST)