Difference between revisions of "User talk:Jevanyn/2009-2010 Winter Tournament"
imported>Sara m (I ought to be working instead of reading the wiki) |
imported>Danatar |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I like a little bit of competition, even if it's just the numbers. Nonetheless, I agree that Danatar's suggestion would provide for the more interesting numbers. But if you'd like to stick even closer to the spirit, you could have a jury (everyone?) rate expeditions by key geohashing criteria, like randomness, outdoors-ness, geekiness, unexpectedness and overall amazingness. That might make for some amazing competition. :D -- [[User:relet|relet]] 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | I like a little bit of competition, even if it's just the numbers. Nonetheless, I agree that Danatar's suggestion would provide for the more interesting numbers. But if you'd like to stick even closer to the spirit, you could have a jury (everyone?) rate expeditions by key geohashing criteria, like randomness, outdoors-ness, geekiness, unexpectedness and overall amazingness. That might make for some amazing competition. :D -- [[User:relet|relet]] 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Yay! I like this one. - [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | :Yay! I like this one. - [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Is this tournament thing still going on or not? I'd support it only if there are criteria different to total number of expeditions, e.g. interestingness of location (0-2 points, my recent field geohashes would get 0), how to get there (also 0-2 points, kayak/climbing > bike/public transport/walking > car), number of geohashers present, and also relet's suggestions. - [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
I like relet's idea of various non-numeric criteria, but if there's going to be a tournament based on numbers, I like that it will be in the winter, so the silliness/meaninglessness will be increased by the extremely different winter weather/winter hours of daylight between certain very active graticules and other very active graticules. You know what would also be interesting if there is going to be a competition based on numbers? Doing it in randomly-assigned teams of graticules that are very far apart, so one would think "We have to get out there in the snow and geohash, or we'll let down Budapest and Minneapolis" [[User:Sara|Sara]] 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | I like relet's idea of various non-numeric criteria, but if there's going to be a tournament based on numbers, I like that it will be in the winter, so the silliness/meaninglessness will be increased by the extremely different winter weather/winter hours of daylight between certain very active graticules and other very active graticules. You know what would also be interesting if there is going to be a competition based on numbers? Doing it in randomly-assigned teams of graticules that are very far apart, so one would think "We have to get out there in the snow and geohash, or we'll let down Budapest and Minneapolis" [[User:Sara|Sara]] 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 16:01, 8 November 2009
Wouldn't it be more interesting to use "total number of geohashers at hashpoints" as the first item? I.e. one expedition with 3 people would count more than 2 expeditions with only one person each. That way it would encourage meetups, drag-alongs and other group-related stuff. - Danatar 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
If this is really only about number of expeditions in a graticule, I hereby ask that my expeditions are not counted, excluding Stuttgart and possibly Pforzheim from the competition, starting with round one. I'm not willing to be part of a competition about pure number of expeditions. Geohashing is not about numbers, it is about experience. Also we all know who will "win" this, and that it won't be a fun and friendly competition. For most of us this is reason enough not to care. Danatars suggestion would be much better, if we want a competition about numbers at all. --Ekorren 22:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I like a little bit of competition, even if it's just the numbers. Nonetheless, I agree that Danatar's suggestion would provide for the more interesting numbers. But if you'd like to stick even closer to the spirit, you could have a jury (everyone?) rate expeditions by key geohashing criteria, like randomness, outdoors-ness, geekiness, unexpectedness and overall amazingness. That might make for some amazing competition. :D -- relet 23:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yay! I like this one. - Danatar 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Is this tournament thing still going on or not? I'd support it only if there are criteria different to total number of expeditions, e.g. interestingness of location (0-2 points, my recent field geohashes would get 0), how to get there (also 0-2 points, kayak/climbing > bike/public transport/walking > car), number of geohashers present, and also relet's suggestions. - Danatar 16:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I like relet's idea of various non-numeric criteria, but if there's going to be a tournament based on numbers, I like that it will be in the winter, so the silliness/meaninglessness will be increased by the extremely different winter weather/winter hours of daylight between certain very active graticules and other very active graticules. You know what would also be interesting if there is going to be a competition based on numbers? Doing it in randomly-assigned teams of graticules that are very far apart, so one would think "We have to get out there in the snow and geohash, or we'll let down Budapest and Minneapolis" Sara 04:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
