Discussion: I'm with you

I just like being on an orienteering course, but it is a bit frustrating when a control isn't where it should be. Because I always doubt myself first. I did notice by control #2 that the course on my map seemed shifted a bit from where it should have been. This helped me on some of the later controls where it was important. I missed the (drinking) water also, and the clue details (top, bottom, etc)
I had a control in the college campus (which I crushed) :) and it reminded me of the 2012 event. I did like that event.

Do you know if the Brown course was affected by misplaced controls?

While I can feel some frustration, in my opinion it's better to have "bad" event than have none. Sure, satisfaction is not there, but as voluntary organization we learn from our own mistakes and try to avoid them in the future. Which brings a good valid point of being proactive when we have novel CS/ED.

It was good be out there anyway and have a training race.

P.S. Well, this map is getting old and will need a refreshment soon.

I don't know about Brown. Patty ran it and had a few challenges but I don't think they were from control locations. I would think Mary would be the best to let you know about that.
I agree with you that any event is better than none. And also that a beginning CS should have a veter. If I do set a course, I definitely would want one. I commend Rick for taking on the task.
RE: remap - I ran up along the horse fields thinking I could use the building but there are now way more than the 2 shown.

I don't know if I "commend" him, because I think he took on more than he could handle, but I do appreciate the vast effort that goes into any event, as we touched on at the course setting clinic this year.

In fact, after all this debate I was inspired to finally finish my article on the clinic for the Briar patch!

The Brown course runners I talked to had issues with stuff being buried in the green, as well as possibly actual control placement at the features vs clue descriptions

IMO new setters should be working with an experienced one to consult on paper as well as vet streamers ahead of the event

IMHO, it is NOT better to have a "bad" event than have none.

Mark Twain said 'It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt'. The same thing applies to providing a service or producing a product.

This meet was bullish*t and there is nothing to learn. We've been there, done that in this area with this ED.

Sorry, sometimes you have to call it for what it is.

So...this was not his first time??? That's bad. I noticed Erik Eddy is taking feedback on this meet...he should just read this thread!

Len- forgot to say - it's great patty moved up to advanced and is doing well!

I am of (at least) two minds on this issue. One - I personally would much rather have fewer events (half as many, even) but have them be excellent in all respects; and I fear that if it becomes OK to have "bad" events - well, then, that's what we'll have. Two - it might be better for DVOA as an organization to keep on doing what we're doing - considering revenues, exposure and the vagaries of weather - having lots of events on many different quality maps with inexperienced folks volunteering. It takes a great deal of time, effort and experience to have a "perfect" meet. The many moving parts of the event equation are the primary reason orienteering might always be a fringe sport. It sure is nice tho when course setters and meet directors get it right: ample signage to site, on-time registration and starts, maps in map cases (not baggies), controls numbered and hung correctly, clue sheets available and complete (which side of the boulder and how big is the durn thing?), a course setter who walked EVERY LEG of EVERY COURSE and avoided parts of the map that are obsolete (especially painfully overgrown) and all the other bells and whistles that go with perfection. Maybe there's a way to designate ahead of time, which kind of event to expect. "B" meet - bells and whistles versus "heads-up, we're winging it".

... I've been reading. Some things may not have wanted to be expressed publicly so I left the email option.

Oh well, opinions, opinions ... by the end of the day we all just volunteers. And if we don't expand the pool of CS/ED ... Okay, the things could be done differently.

I hope the article I've written on the clinic in March will help draw in some new CSs!! Now if I could just finish the rest...

I see Clem's point. I see Vadim's point. Unfortunately, you don't know when a bad event or good event will occur (or maybe the veterans do have a good idea). I'm just happy to be running a course, however, it is frustrating to push yourself on a course and find out it does not count after the fact. It would be nice to 'walk' a course that was non-competitive as practice... (Which, I see, Steve has put together this coming week)
I would think DVOA would want to expand the pool of CS/ED, in which case the veterans may need to spend some extra time working with new CS/ED. Something like a 3 meet training program where everything is overseen by someone who knows the ropes. After that they are free to work on their own.
And then the big question for any volunteer organization, at what point do you turn away bad help? This is a slippery slope that can atrophy an organization quickly.

Ann - Re: Patty and brown. Yes, It was good to see her do well. She was very concerned. But this may go back to proper course setting. The very first course I ran Bob Burg was there and I was considering running Orange. I remember him saying - if you can read a map and compass you should do ok with orange as the controls are within 30m of a trail or lineal feature. A lot of the orange recently has had more difficult controls than that so I think she has been doing brown and not knowing it. (In my limited judgement)