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)

Berlin??

Gah, why do people want to geohash in Berlin? Anything else in Berlin, okayyy (I can understand that).. But Geohashing? It is kinda lame, speaking from experience.. I will hold *you*, A-voter, responsible for it being an *extravagant* event nonetheless! ;D -- lyx 03:14, 2 February 2011 (EST)

I guess you can ask this evening. ;) -- relet 03:44, 2 February 2011 (EST)

Maybe we should get a tour bus and visit both graticules. That would be extravagant enough. :] (And, as a resident I concur: The Berlin graticule is all sand and trees) -- relet 04:49, 2 February 2011 (EST)