WGA to review COTM

[zuma]

@Lostby7 wrote:

First and foremost one should have actually found (or at least looked for) the cache in order to vote for it.

Now that the new rules have finalized for COTM, I thought I would respond to each of the ideas posted here.

As you can see from the new COTM rules posted earlier, the Membership Committee and Board agreed with your point of view here. Thanks for suggesting this.

zuma

[zuma]

@JimandLinda wrote:

I think a certain “probationary” period before a cache can be nominated is in order…say, 6 monthes. This would give a cross section of cachers time to find a good cache to nominate.
Nominating the newest “Flavor of the Month” is not very accurate. If it’s THAT good, it will still be THAT good 6 monthes later, when more cachers have found it.
Limiting a COTM nomination to # of finders pretty much rules out Northern Wisconsin, where some of the most scenic caches are located!

Just my 2 cents worth.

The membership committtee and board agreed with you on the idea, but shortened it to 3 months. The idea is to give folks a chance to find a contender for COTM prior to voting and avoid, as you say, “flavor of the month.”

The complication of thereby limiting some areas was gotten around by adding in the idea of regional COTMS, instead of just a single COTM.

zuma

[zuma]

@Captain and Mate wrote:

@JimandLinda wrote:

I think a certain “probationary” period before a cache can be nominated is in order…say, 6 monthes. This would give a cross section of cachers time to find a good cache to nominate.
Nominating the newest “Flavor of the Month” is not very accurate. If it’s THAT good, it will still be THAT good 6 monthes later, when more cachers have found it.
Limiting a COTM nomination to # of finders pretty much rules out Northern Wisconsin, where some of the most scenic caches are located!

We would have to agree with JimandLinda. We seldom vote for COTM because we often are not familiar enough with the nominated caches to make a good choice. It seems voting for a cache because others liked it or because you know the owner aren’t good reasons.

thanks for the input. Hopefully the changes we are making will change this in a positive direction.

zuma

[zuma]

@AstroD-Team wrote:

I would like to see an email notification sent to nominees stating their cache was nominated. Our son had a cache nominated for COTM and we never knew about it until much much later.

Thanks for the great idea! We started implementing it this month already, and it does seem like a great idea. The motion passed by the board will make sure this practice continues.

Sometimes the simplist ideas are the best!

zuma

[zuma]

@sweetlife wrote:

IMO I think we should just get rid of it. It’s a southern Wisconsin popularity contest.

Not gonna get rid of it, because if we fix it, the COTM can still achieve it’s primary goals: highlight outstanding caches, and attract new members to the WGA.

We are making for regional COTMs though that does address your concern about what has sometimes occurred.

zuma

[zuma]

@gotta run wrote:

@sweetlife wrote:

IMO I think we should just get rid of it. It’s a southern Wisconsin popularity contest.

I had thought so as well but it’s not as bad as I first believed. In the past year there have been two caches from Green Bay win, one from the Wausau area, and one from north of Crandon, so if you cut the state in half, 1/3 of the COTM winners have been from northern WI. I suspect if you look at the cache density in the state that may reflect a similar breakdown.

A bigger issue–and one that might also address any southern WI concern–is addressing the “recency” issue. Requiring a cache to be in place and in good repair for X months before being eligible, as suggested here, is a great idea.

Yep, as I already mentioned to Jim and Linda, the Committee and Board agreed with this basic idea, and made it 3 months instead of 6.

zuma

[zuma]

@RSplash40 wrote:

I have no interest in seeing this continue but suggest that other state caching associations should be checked and see if they have a COTM setup. We don’t always have to re-invent sliced bread.

Good idea, and the committee did do this. The idea of nominating in one month, and voting in the following month comes from this, with the idea that people might visit nominated caches, in order to vote in the following month.

It may take more time to implement this change, as the logistics of implementation are more complex than all the other changes that were approved.

zuma

[zuma]

@glorkar wrote:

I don’t know about some of the others, but I don’t do the COTM mostly because of distance. I don’t have a lot of time to get out caching, and it seems like most of them are just too far away. Perhaps multiple, regional CsOTM? Also, due to my use of an antique GPS, I’ve never purchased a premium membership. So even if this month’s is 10 miles from me, I would never know.

Thanks for the idea of regional COTMs, and this idea was adopted. Great suggestion, since many geocachers tend to travel less to cache than once was the case.

zuma

[zuma]

@Buy_The_Tie wrote:

It would be really easy to make this process / procedure into a behemoth. Please remember:

Thanks for the reminder, and the committee tried KISS.

At first look, though, it might not look all that simple, due to the number of changes, but most of them are very simple and easy to implement changes. So, I hope you approve of the changes, given you are a former COTM administrator.

If by Keep It Simple, you mean Keep It the Same, that was getting to be less and less of an option, as some individuals were gaming the system and making COTM pretty much meaningless.

zuma

[JimandLinda]

It’s nice to see that the sub-committees are hard at it! I’m sure there were a lot of good ideas bantered back and forth.

Thanks for the changes. Let’s see how they work.

[Author]

Posts