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)

I see several reasons why people may have voted Berlin:

• Some are already there so it would be easy and convenient.
• The "everything else" - Berlin is a known attractive destination besides Geohashing (I assume this was why people from outside Germany voted Berlin over Pforzheim or München)
• Berlin ensures it will be a meetup of significant size rather than an epic expedition of a few.
• The german graticules provide a kind of safety in that it will be possible to find a point everyone can agree on. Switzerland and Italy don't.

The latter point is what kept me from voting Bern higher than Berlin, and made me refusing Italy. Personally, I would definitely find Bern more attractive, but I see a very significant risk that, when already there, choosing a point will result in excessive extra travel cost or a terrain which requires physical fitness or even equipment not everyone has.

You can not have "largest meetup" and "most epic location" at the same time. These two aims are mutually exclusive.

Myself, I'm out as soon as it includes the slightest bit which looks like climbing, possibly including ladders. I don't want to go to Switzerland on friday only to find in the evening that the "must be epic" fraction of attendants decide for an expedition which I neither want nor can follow on. Neither I want to be the one who forced the others to drop their preferred location because of this, and have people pick on me - spoken or unspoken - for years after that for it. So I risk to be left behind when already there - which would be reason enough to just stay at home. --Ekorren 06:25, 2 February 2011 (EST)

As per my previous comment, I'd prefer an interesting expedition were we fail to reach the coordinates vs. a boring one where you are assured you can get to the location without much effort, and hence I put Bern before Berlin. This is however a majority vote, and the event will turn out to be what most potential participants want it to be: the "large vs epic" argument doesn't exist, because the voting system favors "large meetup" (well, as long as people really vote for the places where they are willing to go).

For a number of (unrelated to geohashing) reasons Berlin is surely a good second choice. Even if it would probably fail at "enticing new people to become geohashers", it could possibly lead to having more drag-alongs present. (But then, I have to say that there are many reasons to come to Switzerland besides geohashing too!)

As for choosing a graticule on Friday 20.05, the process should be democratic as well, maybe restricted to the participants? --Crox 07:32, 2 February 2011 (EST)