Last edited by Matrix; 24th January 2009 at 07:33 PM. Reason: fat fingers
To get a better understanding of the missing number I ran some stats from GSAK.
The 36,960 active Groundspeak caches in GB are owned by 5447 distinct users. We have, of course, no way of determining how many cachers there are who own no caches but it would seem reasonable to assume that they are few enough to be statistically insignificant. The same probably applies to cachers with multiple identities.
I recall that somewhere on here it was said that there are 515 GAGB members, though there seems to be some doubt about that.
This suggests that the GAGB membership comprises 14% of GB cachers and those who voted at the last GAGB election are 1% of the cachers in GB.
Hardly a mandate to tell the rest of us what to do, is it?
You miss the point. I have no problem with GAGB per se and can see great value in a local organisation (that's the only point on which Kev and I disagree). What I object to is GAGB's claim to represent UK cachers (yet its membership is a tiny proportion of UK cachers) and its view that all GB cachers, whether members or not, must abide by its rules.
Please could you choose to spell my name correctly.
You seem entirely unconcerned that only 10% of GAGB members chose to vote and that only 14% of GB cachers have joined GAGB.
Of course, these statistics wouldn't matter if GAGB would simply work within its membership rather than imposing things on the majority of GB cachers who are not members.
OK, perhaps there are two things Kev and I don't agree on .
I don't see GAGB as a secret society. It has open forums*, the constitution and committee are available for anyone to see, and even the results of the elections are published to non-members.
* It's entirely understandable that GAGB would want to have a forum for members only. I was surprised that this wasn't done when these forums were first made open. I just hope that the members-only forum doesn't cause a return to the closed forum that existed previously, thus once again preventing non-members from commenting on things that affect them.
I'm sorry Alan, but - yet again I feel - my own spin on this is that GAGB does not impose any "rules" on UK cachers.
What individuals do is negotiate permissions with major land owners for cachers to place caches. As part of the negotiation process, and to facilitate the agreement, they often find it useful to refer to GSP guidlines for placing a cache and, what were originally the Hampshire County Councils' conditions that were required before a cache could be placed. They then pass that information onto the GAGB and the GAGB ammends it's datatbase of landowner agreements. The specific pre-conditions that were laid down have become the so-called "UK guidlines."
I, for one, am grateful that cachers have negotiated permission for me to place a cache, perhaps in a Wokingham park or on a Bracknell heath. and would be willing to comply with the conditions the landowner has laid down as pre requisites for my placing of said cache, including accepting the landowners' ruling on how many caches could be in a certain place at a certain time. It surely saves me the time, frustration and sheer hard work of negotiating that permission my self.
But then I don't suppose you will ever see things this way, will you?
We did not vote as we were equally happy with any of the nominees being on the committee - perhaps some of the other 90% of non voters felt similarly?
Not sure where GAGB impose things on anyone?Of course, these statistics wouldn't matter if GAGB would simply work within its membership rather than imposing things on the majority of GB cachers who are not members.
I assume you mean that our reviewers take the sensible common-sense guidelines that have been developed by GAGB and CHOOSE to use them when reviewing caches? Does anyone have a real problem with them doing this? The only people I can see it affecting are irresponsible cachers who will place caches in totally inappropriate places (GSP don't have a "no walls" rule but would you really like to see walls being dismantled all over the country [and the subsequent disrepute it would bring our hobby] because our reviewers couldn't not publish them because GSP hadn't implicitly said no?)
Last edited by team clova; 25th January 2009 at 11:09 AM. Reason: typo
But it does represent UK cachers .....it represents me (and other members) so what are the supposed to claim ?
Allan an alternative spelling and coincidently the way my parents (fathers first name is Allan its a family thing) spelt my middle name so its a subconscious/force of habit kind of thing I am afraid.
But if it bothers you that much I will apologise and make an effort in future.
Id actually argue that 14% of UK cachers actively renewing a yearly membership is very significant and may represent about 90% of the premium members on GSP (im guessing 18% of GSP members are premium members which checking some local caches seems about right)
The number who choose to then vote among the membership seems pretty high for an election where only two of the candidates would not be voted in.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."
My maths might be awry here, but surely 515 GAGB members out of 5447 is less than 10%?
Maybe if there were less negative posts on here and a few more posts that actually supported the GAGB then maybe more cachers would consider joining. If I dropped in to the forum, as a possible new member of the GAGB, and saw all the back biting that goes on I would probably run a mile and wonder why I got involvewd with caching in the first place.
So lets support the GAGB and then maybe we will get a higher number of members and then at the next election hopefully more will be inclined to vote and then those who are not happy with how the commitee have been elected may have less to moan and whinge about.
Then why bother spending so much time on a forum that was set up by an organisation that you feel is not needed?
Or is it just to come and moan about everything and anything.
To the commitee members
'Sorry but I just feel strongly about all the negativity by people who are happy to use the forum just to run down the GAGB'
I shall now log out and have a couple of days cooling off period.
Oh for goodness sake. I'm obviously not making myself very clear.
When the GAGB represents just it's members in negociations and in driving the direction of caching in the UK I'll stop fighting it. The GAGB opened up it's forums for use by non members. I don't see anywhere a rule stating it as opn only to those that support it!
If I supported the GAGB I would be a member. Comments about everyone getting behind it are just attempts to silence those that don't agree with it.
Now, like it or not, the GAGB DOES affect caching within the UK for those of us that are not members. That isn't subjective it's fact.
The attitude that personal freedoms and opinions can be overlooked because "it's good for the game" is a very slippery slope to go down.
If the GAGB was truely fighting the cachers corner then I could support it more but I don't feel it is. It is trying to impose it's standards on the game and that, in my opinion, is not what the GAGB should be doing.
That is an opinion that you obviously don't share. That doesn't make you wrong or me wrong. It just means that we have a different opinion and I do not believe people shoud be silenced simply ecause they disagree. There are parts of the world where that happens, should we work hat way?
Kev
There are lots of posts supportive of the GAGB, from the GAGB members themselves (not surprisingly).
Obviously you don't like the posts that discuss what some people see as deficiencies. Are you suggesting that doubters should simply keep their opinions to themselves? Should everyone agree that only positive feedback can be made public? IMO it's a very weak organisation that won't allow criticism, or which tries and belittle critics by calling them "moaners" and their honest views "back biting".
If this forum is only for backslapping then let's make that clear at the top of the page.
Agreed.
I support the GAGB, and I want to see it grow - but that doesn't mean I cannot or will not be critical of any shortfalls I believe there might be. If it weren't for criticism, nothing would ever change, and any organisation would quickly stagnate.
Take a committee as an example. If every member of a committee were in complete agreement on all matters, all the time, what would be the point of their existence?
Discussion has to include both positive and negative criticism. Some people are just better at pointing out perceived deficiencies than they are at identifying new areas for improvement.
What does surprise me is the amount of criticism levelled at the GAGB committee. The committee aren't THE GAGB. You and I are.
Last edited by keehotee; 27th January 2009 at 01:20 PM. Reason: perception is everything
Its been said on here that the GAGB has a mandate from 56 people.
This is wrong it means 56 people voted to decide the fate of two of the nominees
This was hardly an earthshattering election where hundreds were in the running it was about two people not being automatic members of the committe if you choose to vote or not vote.
Are we allowed to dismiss election results based on turnout ? only those who care one way or the other ever vote
As false leads and manipulation of figures goes this is straight from the good book by Darryl Huff
So we actually have
9.454746% of UK cachers are members of the GAGB (figures courtesy of AW)
Therefore
it has a mandate from its 9.5% of GSP members
So 10% of cachers in the UK are members of the GAGB this probably represents a pretty fair cross section but could do with building on.
"If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning."
Given that I apparently wasn't a member and yet was allowed to vote and several others thought they were members and now find they are not, I'll wait until the GAGB get's it databases sorted out before reckoning on 9.5% being a good statistic in any shape or form. If the association doesn't know how many there are then known us can either
I have always been a believer of the Encourage and Criticise method of getting the best from people and organisations/committees. But have also found that if you constantly criticise without any encouragment then you gain nothing.
That is my opinion for what it is worth.
Now I shall go out and find some tupperware boxes.:socool:
Tried that before. It didn't work
Given that since this thread started you GAGB members now have a forum to see discussions of the committees activities and we have had the results of the election published I would argue that the approach has worked. Certainly other approaches received a flat no.
Kev
I have to disagree here. Tony possibly isn't aware of all the facts but I had, as a member (or so I believed) asked the committee privatly if this information was to be published. I was told it wasn't!
That is contrary to the claims above that they were going to publish. In fairness to the committee they responded reasonably quickly and publish but only AFTER I asked publically.
Kev
My emphasis!
So just how many committees are there then? Perhaps they could show the minutes stating when they discussed this? I was told, in writing, that they would not be releasing this information! And now we are to believe that this was being discussed!
I really hope you guys are a bit better a negociation with landowners than this.
So far we have
1. people who it turns out are not full members voting thinking they are full members.
2. People thinking they are forum members finding out they are full members (I have no idea whether they want to be or not)
3. a committee claiming they were looking at publishing data having already said they were not going to.
Number 1 makes a mockery of the election
Number 2 makes a mockery of the membership numbers
Number 3 quite frankly makes a mockery of the committee!
Are you sure you are all fit to represent UK caching?
Kev
Chill, I was talking in general terms about the committee being more open not specifics of election results. The election results not being on the list but that was more because it had not occurred to us rather than anything else.
Then again I am sure there are those who will teist what I have just said to their own agenda.
Do your best playmates
It's certainly easy just to retact a post like that but it makes your feelings perfectly clear in this matter.
I'm all for freedom of speech etc having made a career out of trying to defend it but it amazes me how you don't just offer your opinion but make sure that everything is twisted into an attack on the GAGB.
This is probably the only place online where attacks like that levelled at a group of individuals who are giving their free time to better a hobby we all enjoy is tolerated. I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
I think some people need to take a step back and look at themselves closely to try to gauge how they will be perceived from their postings. This is of course my own opinion which is just as valid as yours (opinion not attacks) I guess. :
Last edited by studlyone; 27th January 2009 at 08:10 PM. Reason: I need a speel chucker :)
"I Cache, therefore I am"
Thanks Kev. You might be hanging us on the hook but you are also a gentleman and know when to let us down .
The forums are a work in progress, as is integrating the membership system with it, so it's a bit of a building site though in the virtual world of Internet you can't see that clearly!
However, credit where it's due, you certainly galvanised the committee into action to sort out a members area where committee discussions will be on view. I think that's progressive and believe it will prove beneficial. :cheers:
Cheers, Roderick
I assume this means I should treat something I oppose with kid gloves? Quite frankly, voicing the occassional polite opinion will never achieve anything with the type of organisation that feels it's doing the right thing in everyone elses interest. I would simply be politly ignored.
I'm sorry but if there is one thing in this world that really gets my goat is the "I give my time for nothing so you should be grateful" arguement. If people CHOOSE to stand for election and to represent others then they must expect critisism from others that do not agree.
There is no irony involved. The GAGB does not campaign for free speech!
I very rarely stoop to a personal attack on anyone. Until now I have been against the GAGB as an organisation not against the individuals in it. I made my remark above based on a misunderstanding of Mongooses comment, somewhat understandable I feel given that this thread started by me asking for election results. Had Mongoose meant that then my arguement would have stood. If an organisation such as this claims something untrue then they should be pulled up for it. Based on the information at the time that was what it came across as. I have retracted that part! I stand fully behind the rest.
It is a fact that you had me down as non member of this association and yet my vote was cast, along with others in the same position.
It is a fact that there are members of this association who have learnt today that they are full members and are suprised to find this out.
Both of these things are shortcomings on the association and nobody else. These are not my shortcomings, I don't control your membership database, and please, don't tell me how complicated it is, I'm a software engineer, it is not difficult to keep track of 500 names and current status. I don't doubt that you have inherited a mess but i is your claim that these numbers reflect actuate active membership.
Kev
Point taken, what I can't understand is the circular argument in all this. Your initial post asked for information and this was provided once the committee discussed it. As a software engineer you may be able to offer to give us a few pointers with the members database, as has been said Stuart is working hard on it but changes can't happen overnight. This needs to be sorted so that future elections will withstand scutiny. Your points about perceiving the GAGB as a secretive organisation have been hoisted on board and we are trying to do something about that. Yet with all this activity draging everyone away from what the committee is trying to do you are not satisfied. Please continue to oppose the GAGB as some of what you say is not perceived from inside and so is helping us to evolve the GAGB for the long term.
"I Cache, therefore I am"
I must admit that I feel that this thread really has gone way further than I wanted. Believe it or not I would far rather discuss these things over a beer in a pub than slog them out on a forum.
I orginally asked one question and recieved a reasonably prompt reply to that. I guess it kind of wondered about a bit from that point.
I'm fairly sure that I cannot really expect to gain anything more by continually battling away in this thread. It's time it faded out and I let you guys get on.
Kev
Now you are talking my language, things are easy to misinterpret on a forum if I ever bump into you in a pub I'll buy that pint. :cheers:
"I Cache, therefore I am"
I've been involved with many organizations over the years, but I never seen a situation were this level of sustained abuse has been tolerated by any of them (except this one).
These forums were opened up to all, as a means to allow all UK cachers a voice, and to have a say in the future development of their game. However, it's become very clear over the past few weeks that a tiny minority of highly motivated individuals are using this forum as a platform to attack the GAGB and it's committee members. I far as I'm concerned, any claim that these individuals had to "caring about caching" has been lost in the abuse they have offered this organization.
I've watched with dismay, how these individuals have manipulated the truth to further their own agenda, with hateful posts on other forums and attacks on an organization who's only aim is to support the UK geocaching community.
Only the tolerance of committee members has allowed these individuals to continue their attacks on this forum.
Speaking personally: I don't share the same tolerance level as other committee members, and if it was down to me, this hate campaign would have been nipped in the bud weeks ago