What grade of planner/organiser are you?

[Paul Frost]

I'd be interested to know why the controllers were so strongly against such a scheme...

I think it was the general feeling of not wanting to be judged or marked out of 10, which has been mentioned in this thread as well.

No one likes to be criticised, and when you are only doing it as a volunteer probably less so, so it is an understandable viewpoint.

From my small experience of road races it looks like the organisation/timing/entries is sometimes subbed out to a professional company, and not all being done by volunteers. I'm sure this is not universal, but it does make it easier to blame/complain about failings when you are paying for a service.

I think the problem we have in orienteering is that the technical skills required to map, plan, computing, website etc. are significant (and time consuming to acquire), and beyond the ability of the average orienteer. So the pool of skilled volunteers is small, and this puts immense pressure on those that do have the skills. This also makes it hard for them to find the time to train/mentor less experienced people that may want to learn.

[DaveR]

Make the courses pleasant and don't take the orienteers through masses of green sh1t and you'll miss many of the moans that come planners directions. Save the masochistic stuff for the elite classes!

I completely agree with Jon (apart form the bit about elite classes which I suspect is tongue in cheek!).

Back almost on topic: It is actually quite hard to get any feedback as a planner, organiser or controller. I'm sure I have made mistakes and compromises that other people have spotted but haven't known how to tell me about them. I have tried chatting to people as they finish which can work and I've seen other officials actively seeking feedback but it is hard to talk to more than a very few people on the day. Occasionally event specific comments appear on Nopesport but that is relatively rare.

The only official way to give or get some feedback is through an official protest which is the nuclear option, heartily discouraged, and inappropriate for most comments and general criticism.

[roadrunner]

I'd be interested to know why the controllers were so strongly against such a scheme...

I think it was the general feeling of not wanting to be judged or marked out of 10, which has been mentioned in this thread as well.

No one likes to be criticised, and when you are only doing it as a volunteer probably less so, so it is an understandable viewpoint.

From my small experience of road races it looks like the organisation/timing/entries is sometimes subbed out to a professional company, and not all being done by volunteers. I'm sure this is not universal, but it does make it easier to blame/complain about failings when you are paying for a service.

I think the problem we have in orienteering is that the technical skills required to map, plan, computing, website etc. are significant (and time consuming to acquire), and beyond the ability of the average orienteer. So the pool of skilled volunteers is small, and this puts immense pressure on those that do have the skills. This also makes it hard for them to find the time to train/mentor less experienced people that may want to learn.

It's true that timing and entries are often outsourced (organisation much less so), but criticisms of those aspects are quite rare.

Why do people think that feedback = criticism? It can just as much be praise, and this is surely something that volunteers appreciate more than professionals. Sample comments on a recent race:

A well organised event, although the baggage drop-off and collection was rather slow and a little chaotic.

Really enjoyed this race, it was well organised the marshals were very friendly and encouraging.A good race, well organised although the delayed start was a bit frustrating. Thanks to the organisers and marshalls.

I can't see comments like that putting anyone off (and I haven't been unduly selective in picking these examples).

Some people will comment on events via Nopesport in any case, all a scheme like this would do is hopefully get more representative feedback.

[NeilC]

I set up a simple online feedback system for SEOA events a few years back which did provide useful information.
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Neil_Crickmore/feedback2.html
The bigger problem was disseminating the results - both good and less good practice. Controllers got it but getting it to future event officials was more problematic - in many cases the information trail ended with the club secretary or regional representative.

[greywolf]

Even the best planners would probably concede that their courses are never perfect, there are always constraints and compromises... in my admittedly very limited experience planning is a time-consuming but very rewarding iterative process of test running and tweaking, searching for that unobtainable perfect set of courses, which could carry on forever if it wasn't for the reality of printing deadlines and the event itself... so I, and i'd imagine most planners would have no problems with - and would welcome - any feedback couched in terms of "thanks, would leg X on course Y have been better if you'd done Z?"

Conversely, when you see real planning shockers, like TD4 legs on "Yellow" or relay last legs through the middle of spectators and up the download queue, then IMHO these are Controller errors - and they are supposed to be graded - and perhaps there should be a mechanism for some kind of review process

[roadrunner]

I set up a simple online feedback system for SEOA events a few years back which did provide useful information.
http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Neil_Crickmore/feedback2.html
The bigger problem was disseminating the results - both good and less good practice. Controllers got it but getting it to future event officials was more problematic - in many cases the information trail ended with the club secretary or regional representative.

That looks excellent - but surely, dissemination is easy if you simply display the scores and comments on a web page?

[Paul Frost]

Why do people think that feedback = criticism? It can just as much be praise...

In reality people are more likely to complain if something was bad than praise if everything was OK (after all, that is what we should expect).

I like Neil's form though, it's simple and quick to complete, just need to convert the grade to a numeric value, then add them up for an overall event score. Perhaps limit to just good, average or poor to reduce the subjective values.

[Roger]

It is actually quite hard to get any feedback as a planner, organiser or controller. I'm sure I have made mistakes and compromises that other people have spotted but haven't known how to tell me about them. I have tried chatting to people as they finish which can work and I've seen other officials actively seeking feedback but it is hard to talk to more than a very few people on the day. Occasionally event specific comments appear on Nopesport but that is relatively rare.

I spent a fair bit of time this week looking at Routegadget following my planning endeavours last weekend: not only were the various route choices illuminating, but so were the (sadly rare) comments. They're all collected together one file (kommentit_N.txt -- ask your Routegadget guru), so you don't have to pick through all the posted routes checking for comments.

[graeme]

I don't see how competitors can evaluate a controller who did a good job.

Often you get a superb map, a planner whose courses are fantastic out of the box, everyone goes away happy. You maybe adjust the odd placement, cut the odd circle, switch a few "similar numbers" - if you spot them before the planner.

Competitors praise you afterwards, but you didn't really do anything.

Sometimes you get an unpleasant area, a lot of iffy mapping meaning you can't use bits which look good to the competitor. You have to stick the flags high in the air if the map isn't usable for detailed navigation. The planner might send the courses through a load of unmapped sh!t, and you have to subtly prod them to replan without offending them. Maybe more than once, remembering its not your place to take over planning course. Timelines can slip - volunteers can't be ordered around. You have to move misplaced tapes and controls.

In the end you get something adequate out of what you had to work with. You did a really good job, but everything good you did is invisible to the competitor. All you can do to prove your worth is to wait for the next event on that area to be sh!te.

Sometimes you get unlucky. Controls are stolen, the weather is rubbish, you're dragged away to placate some angry member of the public. You miss the one map in a thousand where the overprint slipped - and so does the competitor who picks it up. The editor of a magazine takes you to task after falling over an unmapped ruined fence somewhere in your 10km^2 area. Again, competitors will criticise, but its not really your fault.

True, there are low-level things like getting controls in the wrong place, or TD4 legs on yellow, which are unacceptable and competitors can see. But these are pretty rare. Any worthwhile ranking should be looking to separate the excellent from the competent - not simply point out cock-ups.

In my experience, whatever you ask, feedback primarily answers the questions "did you have a good run?" and "was it a nice area?".

So assessment is hard, but personal feedback is always good, especially when you can show a disgruntled competitor that it was actually their error, not yours!

[andypat]

I see Graeme's point - but I suppose from the competitor's perspective its not about whether the controller had a blinder or the planner made a howler. Its about whether the event went off without avoidable problems and gave a fair run to him or herself.

I think it would be important to make sure any grading of events took in a minimum number of feedbacks to avoid the one or two complaints you're always going to get even when everything is perfect colouring the score.

[EddieH]

Further to Graeme's point, there can be so much luck in a) event circumstances and b) who complains.

As exampes :

a) I can think of 2 JKs where the organisers must have simply crossed their fingers regarding the weather. In one we all parked in the dry, then had a nightmare getting out downhill after rain. The walk to the start was 3k and I commented that the nearest alternative parking I could think of was a further 3 miles away to be told that there was no alternative parking.
In the other the smae field was used for 3 days - very soft and undulating - no chance of sccess had the weather been wet yet again no alternative worked out and the weather gods were good,

b) Controls are actually in the wrong place more often than many realise. Normally a quiet comment is made which can be greeted by a range of emotions from flat denial through healthy scepticism to abject apologies. At one M21L event a number of us lost a differing amount of time - I had a word with planner and controller, neither of whom believed it could be wrong but promised to collect the control themselves. Normally I think that would have been the end of it, but when the results arrived no-one could have missed the official's apologies for their error. Thus everyone knew that they had messed up. Had they simply had a quiet word with me it would have remained largely unknown. Equally had a competitor got really irate and put in a formal complaint it would have appeared much worse as it is hard to see how the course could not have been voided.

[RJ]

So much of an event is totally unique to that event. You might think it is just a few courses put out in the forest. But, everyone tries to make it different from the last time..... different start, finish, flow of competitors around the area. Then there is the time of year, weather! The only thing staying constant is the set of guidelines/rules for what is offered.

It is a wonder we get so much right, so often. Competitors are often intolerant when things aren't..... absolutely perfect!..... that might be the real problem!

[EddieH]

Yes Roger quite right.

I remember a badge event where the second leg was a short downhill dexcent to a control by a path, making the third leg a guaranteed path run. Utterly daft bad planning one thinks. I returned to the area and ran (stumbled) directly from 1 to 3 to find unmapped boulder fields and horrendous vegetation. Clearly the planner and /or controller had done their job properly even though no-one would have realised.

As there were no features in the bad area it would have been easy for neither official to discover the problem. In fact this happens quite often - twice I have taken an unexpected route to have my race completely lost to abominable recent felling - they were both thoroughly unfortunate situations, but I was not prepared to blame the officials - how can you expect them to find every possible thing on every possible route?

[Big Jon]

Planners and controllers need to know when to avoid part of an area - for any of several reasons - too horrible (green, stony), too vague - not fair to competitors, map not good enough - either map badly surveyed or area is unmappable (crazy amount of rock or broken ground). This is as important as planning good legs and hanging controls correctly.

[seabird]

In reality people are more likely to complain if something was bad than praise if everything was OK (after all, that is what we should expect)

Many clubs around here attach a forum to their results page which allows folks to make comments freely. It is noticeably more characteristic for people to offer praise, than negativity. Some offer constructive criticism. Of course there are the occasional complainers, but even their negativism can be useful feedback - it rarely predominates - and often gives us a good laugh.

And on the grading of officials. Historically it has been there as long as I can remember. I think it is a symptom of our love to complicate/bureaucratise our affairs.

The current guidelines for officials, particularly controllers, takes no real account of the current event structure guidelines. I fear that if the "4-Levellers" get their way they will further complicate all this.

Clubs are in the best position to judge the capabilities of their officials. No club is going to give someone a major role at their more prestigious events where that indiviual has not previously displayed a reasonable degree of competence in less challenging ciurcumstances.