Oh yes seen some last year, but I guess situation is still the same. Any improvements?

NOOO - no improvments what so ever...still the same situation.

I keep a black list, and the no-shows are banned for life. (last Thursday night, @ curry night in Lady Godiva I had 7 no-shows, never even heard a word from them...)

Simply fed up with them, even worse when it's sooo called friends, and no fair on the Restaurants and the organizer.

As from next year I will start with payment in advance, payment online. My two cents

I don't think it has been totally solved - I ran 3 events in late summer, and had quite a number no shows who did not contact me. Other event organisers say this is common too.

Forgot to add, posted last weeks no-show names on the actual event = name & shame. Nothing has been done over the years about the no-shows, so I start with posting the names as from now on. (only for dinner events)

I organize some of the ladies-only events, and the same story there..always always a lot of No-Shows..but at least I don't pay for them. For restaurants and such, I can imagine that it reflects poorly on the organizer..I personally do not keep a black list, I think it would be too much of a hassle and if Ido organize dinners etc..I would make sure to invite people I know will show up..but then again..there is always a risk... last minute cancellations etc.

It's a problem, so I try to organise events where it doesn't matter. Our group has been great, there's a core that I can depend on, and if they're not in, then I sometimes cancel the event because it's impossible to know about the no-shows.

Its not just the money - when I have organised hikes, people need to organise car sharing, So its unfortunate when someone signed off the activity due to no room in the cars, that people then just text on the morning they no longer intend to come.

There have not been any improvement: had 3 no shows at my last event. Am considering launching a dinner evening in Lausanne-Indian food-but hesitate. The site owners would need to make changes so that organizers (like on the social site www.onvasortir.ch) can rate participants after the event: 1 green • = attended; 1 yellow • = did not attend but sent an excuse; 1 RED • = DID NOT attend and did not send excuses.

@ SWISS: what a good idea to post the names of no shows! Will do the same in the future.

I have had fewer problems lately but for hikes I tend to post on glocals only the Tuesday before the hike when the weather forecast is known for the weekend and that way cancellations are minimum.  i have only had one no show recently and he was nothing to do with glocals.

Also on my more demanding walks (easy alpinism and T5's) I rarely post on glocals as I am obliged to limit the number of participants especially if roped glacier crossings are involved and I have no problem filling places with club members.

I have a black list but do not publish and regulars know this and always show up or cancel in time.

For the same reasons I rarely post weekend walks on glocals as I need to give exact numbers to the mountain huts and have to have people I trust..

I do not recommend naming and shaming, Threatening people with stigma discourages participation instead of encouraging it, probably causing some people to leave the site for good.

it is far better to simply not take the risk by booking as an organizer, and ask people to book themselfs. Then the no-show risk is transfered to the participants. It is sometimes hard to do, but there comes the magic of being a good event planner.

Other than adding a 'Maybe Coming' button I am not sure a solution needs to be implemented on the website's side. By signing up to an event people are surely not signing their life away,


Cheers,
Chris

Make all non showers post an event at least once in their Glocals life time...

There should be an option in glocals to mark a person in black list (or some rating stuff ) if person doesn't appear (the organizer may black list the member or can put negative rating) so next time organizer may know and avoid such members or drop them from list and on ther other side members will be very very very careful and will be sured before signingup for the event.  

@ChrisCrn: Really? I for one, am going tiname the no-shows. How can anyone find it acceptable to sign up and not to shiw up.Try doing that on www.onvasortir.com 3x and you will be kicked off the site. 

@Legalkitty

You mean how dare people have more important priorities in their life other than the event they signed up for fun?

I will be the first to say it can be annoying to have no-shows without a word, but it is kind of arrogant to think that my event should be at the top of their list of things to do, or that they owe explanations to someone they have never met.

They probably won't get another invite, but I won't go around pointing them to others as bad people :)

Isn't it equally arrogant to assume organizers who have worked hard to coordinate an event should bend to your whims and suffer a lot of hassle because of your failure to be courteous and just drop a note?

Of course we all have higher priorities in life than a fun event we happened to spot on Glocals. But perhaps it's the responsibility of us as respectful people to RSVP a "No" if we do find other priorities surfacing.

I like the point system/green-yellow-red light suggestion.

Kind of arrogant eh? Maybe Chris, just maybe, it's also 'kind of arrogant' to assume that people who don't turn up and who believe themselves to be so special that taking two minutes to drop a line to the organiser - even at the last minute - is beneath them. 

I always give my mobile number out the day before any event I post, so people can contact me should they need to. A few will contact me which is fair enough as things do happen at the last minute. Failing that, anyone else who doesn't bother, I just blacklist them as frankly I'd prefer not to have their company in future. 

Wow Myriam! That's a bit extreme. Bamboo splints under their fingernails, giving their credit card details to 'a Nigerian princess', waterboarding maybe but I wouldn't be so cruel as to make someone organise an event! 

Wow, now this looks like a thread!

I'd prefer the green, yellow & red buttons of legalkitty and also asking to pay advance whenever there is a question of preparing food suggested by..SWISS. Black-list and Banning is not really my way.

Chris, no-showers are not "bad-people" but lack some responsibility I would say. Many times you may write a few words even a day or two after the event if you really were so busy that particular moment you were suppose to have fun.

Well, at my Japanese festival event in October, out of 100 people RSVPed, 10 showed up  10 friggin' % I gave up on blacklisting from there.  It would have better been just an event announcement.

It's funny how people just love hitting the attending button, but can't be bothered to change it to No or send a message to the organisers. I personally think it's common sense and common curtesy to let people know..regardless if I know them or not..but Hey that's just me :)

I once read this great quote, which I find so True!

"Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment. Because You have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it"

Is it because there is no other way to "bookmark" an event to check out later (but you do not want to say "no" just yet)? Or have I just missed it?

One thing I have tried, which worked, was to require some feedback in the week leading up to an event. It doesn't eradicate the problem, but it does give you a good idea of who might not come. On the monday before a weekend event, put "please tell me if you are not coming out to all participants"

Another thing is to limit the number of places so it fills up quickly. Extra participants who are keen to join will usually send a mail, and they usually turn up.

The OVS pages have a waiting list that tells people that their place will be filled, which maybe encourages people to sign off.

I hear something similar might have been suggested before, but what about a "Maybe" button, or a "Bookmark for later" thing. That way people can have the event on their profile, so it is easy to find again, but they are not part of the attending group. It could even have a friendly reminder function where the people who are on the bookmark list get a question from Glocals to decide like a day or two before the actual event? The point being that the organizer can disregard the "maybe" list.

I always show up. For only two events, a book club and a race, the organizer never got back to me but I've gone to everything I've signed up for.

It would be nice to have a system to reflect that...so that organizers know they can count on me. They have it for couch-surfing why not glocals? 

To answer the original poster and address some of the points made, there is no way to “avoid” no-shows for events.  If it bothers you that much, then don’t organise events – let other people do the organising (Like me! Haha!!)

It’s life and whilst it’s arrogant, rude, impolite – call it what you will – we are an international community with many different cultures and lifestyles and we will never get everyone to conform to our way of thinking or our high expectations of others.

As far as publicly blacklisting and “naming and shaming” – what a terrible, sad waste of negative energy.  

I just make a mental note of people who have let me down and next time they sign up, I drop them a polite PM to tell them why I’m removing them from the event. 

There is a facility for this on the glocals site.  Whilst it may seem equally “impolite”, remember that you DO have the option to remove unreliable people from events.

And if money is involved – pay up front.  It’s perfectly acceptable and within the glocals “rules”. 

I hope event organisers (past, present and future) will take away the positive suggestions from this (and the many other similar threads) and continue to post activities & events and ENJOY them, regardless of who turns up. 

Remember, the no-shows are the ones that miss out – they are the REAL losers – not you, the organiser, or the rest of the group.

And to the no-shows who didn’t come to my wine tasting event on Saturday (and didn’t bother to let me know)?

We all had a Bloody, Brilliant, Time!!

Ok Siteadmin Oded and Nir, the Maybe button has obviously been suggested many times before. So how about you actually implement it for Realz? How hard can it be ?

Thanks in advance, mabe sometime before 2014 would be about time! I'm not sure it will help, but at least people who are No Shows..err sorry uncertain..will have another button to click on then attending

Hello, I thing the "maybe" button is not a solution :

15 people registered and 15 people "maybe" .

If everyone comes , you'll have 30 people with you.

On the other hand , this does not solve the problem of reservations at restaurants or elsewhere. " Do you have a table for a group of ..... heuu ... maybe 15 , maybe 25, or maybe less"
This is not realy serious.

There a few weeks ago I organized something that had to be paid .
The participants knew before registering.
I wrote: " Please only register if you are sure you can participate "

I had six last minute cancellations (30 registered)

Without explanation .

I wrote a message to everyone to tell them what I thought of such behavior .

I had six messages of apology , some written in French (I'm Swiss my English is not very good).

The only regret is that I wish I had these messages a few days before .

Participants pay before is a good solution.
Even if it gets a little complicated in case of cancellation by the organizer.

If we accept to organize things for humans, then it may be necessary to accept that they are only human , with their advantages and flaws.

Humans are not very respectful ..... it's a shame, but it's like that.
And usually it's a minority in my "event".

Good idea but this would only work if we all signed up and then did not appear

Having read through most of the comments, I would say 'no' to a 'maybe' button I am only interested in people who are coming. 

Everyone says do not name and shame and I tend to agree; but all these people seem to have their personal blacklists anyway and I think that is good enough.

Higher up I mentioned that I do not advertise now on glocals often but then some 30% of people who have turned up on my walks have either joined the Swiss Alpine club or Oxygene74.  Everyone who comes on my walks usually gets an email advice from me as to when my next walk will be. 

There seem to be a common feeling from the Glocalers that organize events-that we do not like no-shows: quite frankly I would love to be able to rate the participants presence! I did not realize that I could remove participants-will keep that in mind.

What about people enrolling for 2 or 3 activites at the same time? If this is not a lack of respect, what is it?

I noticed some "professional" no-show people who kept on registering to my activites until I asked them "d'aller se faire pendre ailleurs" as we nicely put it in French. 

Some people who had a real gift at organizing activities stopped due to no-shows and this is really a shame.

Like to add: Glocals is the best site according to me to organize events here & meet lots of wonderful people.

I'm actually not disgusted with "no-shows" and demotivated to add events, but in fact more & more happy to organize & enjoy every moment with other participants..

Also posted this so that I can identify how other organizers react, learn & improve my aproach to forthcoming events.... and remain further optimistic that it will be better of in future.

Good luck Admins!

Not sure how you can not be disgusted by no-shows-it takes less than one mn to unregister to an event  and a lot of work to organize an event.

Perhaps the site owners could make it impossible to sign up for several events at the same time: on www.onvasortir.com (sorry to keep quoting the site) you can not do so: for ex for a badminton evening from 18:00-20:00 hours, the organizer has to propose the 1st hour starting at 17:30 and the 2nd one at 19:00 so that those wishing to play 1 hour may sign up.

"d'aller se faire pendre ailleurs"

Realy nice ! I like your expression.

In the same vein : "D'aller se faire voir ailleurs", for a no-shows..it's more....i don't know...maybe more adapted to the situation.

Bye

Hahahah well in the Swiss Police State it would be fitting in on your profile your event no show rate was automatically calculated somehow. If you saw someone with a no show rate of 90% missed 9 of 10 things the signed up for, you could just not take that registration seriously. Hahahah, dream on! I know this would never work but a fun idea nonetheless!

Whether the no-show is an issue or not obviously depends on the kind of event: for a drink or a ski day, it is just not polite for the organizer; for a dinner it is embarrassing; for an event more ambitious ie with a fixed total cost divided by the number of participants, it is really ennoying. I try to communicate accordingly prior to the event, which reduces the number of no-shows. Unfortunately, I also reduced organizing events sensitive to no-shows... Finaly the question is : are we a community of expat(&local) people or just "avatars"?

Just for ure information on OVS the organiser just DELET YOU if they do not want u for what ever RAISON

That is not true at all: I have been on OVS for over 4 years and it's only recently that organizers are able to remove members who have signed up: i's done only in specific cases, ie a badminton outing for very good players and a beginner signs up. Then the beginner might be asked to removed him or herself and if this does not happen, then the organizer migh remove the beginner.

I like to go the extra mile to help these people who double book with one of the two (or more) events being mine. I just remove them from mine dropping them a polite note advising them maybe they've forgotten they're otherwise committed during that time, proving what a helpful chap I am. 

The thing is no one ever writes back complaining which I guess proves the point these people just pound on the RSVP YES button randomly like chimps and sign up for everything and then can't be arsed to turn up. 

My name is Nir and I'm of glocals' admins. We're following this thread closely because the no-shows have been an issue for a long while, and to date we couldn't find a good solution for them. 

I'll chip in more as the thread evolves, but would love to hear more feedback and ideas, thanks for your time!

I suggested the maybe button earlier, but I have been persuaded from the other posts here that it might not be a good solution. What about just a bookmark button that does not put you on the list of the organizer. it is just for you own use, to keep track of events you MIGHT want to attend, but you are not sure yet. This would just be a "bookmark for later"-button, so you can decide closer to the date of the specific event. You could perhaps even add a function that would remind the "bookmarkee" a day or two before the event that they need to decide if they want to attend.

Additionally I would think that making it impossible for someone to double book would be good, I mean we cannot be two places at once after all.  I guess Glocals already keeps track of what one has signed up for, and when the event is being arranged.

A third thing I thought of was what if the friendly reminders that are already sent out a day or two in advance of an event required a user's interaction? Like you had to re-confirm by clicking a link in the email, or something similar?

In the end though I think it is difficult to avoid the problem completely. People will be people and they will find ways to "outsmart" the system ;)

Firstly – congratulations for being man enough to admit that your earlier idea wasn’t the best – it’s not many people that have the humility to do that on a public forum.

Secondly – what’s with the whole “book mark”, “maybe”, “reminders” suggestions from several posters???

Just put it in your electronic diary with a note to yourself that you’ve signed up or not signed up with a reminder (you know, the little alarm clocks icons….) 2, 3, 4 (you choose) days in advance.  Then log on and change your RSVP. Hardly rocket science.

I’m sure we can all manage our own diaries – No?  Why should we expect the Glocals Admins to do it for us!!

Third and finally – whilst I agree “double booking” can confuse issues, I think people should be allowed to double book AS LONG as they do manage their diary and make their mind up and give the organiser sufficient notice.  

For example, I wouldn’t condemn someone signing up to my hike at 2000 metres and also signing up for a coffee morning, because if the weather changes and 2 days before it forecasts snow storms, then they’re obviously going to favour the coffee morning.  

I wouldn’t pre-judge them as being indecisive and “obvious no shows” just because they’re hedging their bets, based on the weather.

Obviously, if they didn't let me know then I'd have to send Rich round.....

As has been said 1,000 times – it’s all down to common sense, courtesy and consideration of your fellow human beings.

@Carolyn

If people could manage their diaries the way in which you describe, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The point of the "bookmarking" was that because there is no such option now, people tend to hit "YES" to events in order to keep an eye on them instead of saying "NO" for the same purpose.

The timing and frequency of reminders can be improved. Clearly a single 24hr notice (usually sent out during the morning of the day before an event)  is too little for all the forgetful people out there

"I suggested the maybe button earlier, but I have been persuaded from the other posts here that it might not be a good solution. "

I agree

"What about just a bookmark button that does not put you on the list of the organizer. it is just for you own use, to keep track of events you MIGHT want to attend, but you are not sure yet. This would just be a "bookmark for later"-button, so you can decide closer to the date of the specific event. You could perhaps even add a function that would remind the "bookmarkee" a day or two before the event that they need to decide if they want to attend."

it is a function more to help people remember their desires. This goes in the right direction, but does not help the problem of people who are registered and do not show up. The problem remains the same because it appears after registration. Maybe If the people have a "reminder" button ou "bookmark for later" They will avoid Register for remember. It is a good idea.

"Third and finally – whilst I agree “double booking” can confuse issues, I think people should be allowed to double book AS LONG as they do manage their diary and make their mind up and give the organiser sufficient notice.  

For example, I wouldn’t condemn someone signing up to my hike at 2000 metres and also signing up for a coffee morning, because if the weather changes and 2 days before it forecasts snow storms, then they’re obviously going to favour the coffee morning."

Yes, it's true...i agree with that.

I think the problem of presentation is not a problem that has no "friendly" solution (there is some "hard" solution, like OVS)
When I organize a free hike, free of charge, i don't care if I have 25 or 15 people with me.
When it's a hike for a fee. A hike where, if people do not show up, I have to pay myself. There is a problem.
For now, I ask for advance payments.
I have not found other solutions and I have not seen elsewhere.

I think there is a true problem only if there is something to pay : Restaurant, refuge, hutte, etc...etc...

But this is just my idea, not more. Maybe i am wrong.

Have a nice day to all ! :)

Perhaps create a "no-show" button for the organizer, and just automatically send a mail to the glocal member after 3 reported no-shows, to remind him/her that it is not cool for the organizers to behave as such. It keeps it discrete (no public naming, no blacklist) but can be enough as a little pressure. 

There is a risk that it would become a popularity rating.

Christophe

I agree more or less completley with all your points.

Regarding hut bookings and taking money in advance.  Sadly it has come to this.  My method is not to accept glocals people whom I do not know if a weekend is involved but with huts it is getting more difficult for the this so called 'glocals' problem.  Guides usually book two or three different hut for a weekend and then chose the one which propmises the best weather.  With several huts I have built up a good relationship and can avoid the new regulations of not paying in advance but it can backfire and there I have to rely on their understanding.

When I ended up in hospital with a fractured skull and neck injuries at the beginning of October I was only able to get hold of the hut the day before and cancel.  They accepted the cancellation but I failed to show p on my own event.!!!! 

thanks john, yes i agree, maybe the organizer also could have an automatic list of no-shows in his events. Maybe just delete some when there are good excuses and responses of not showing up. That could keep a real record of no-shows.

So what do other organizers think, please do keep posting your helpful ideas. Thanky

I'd appriciate the "ranking" of peoples attending behaviour and also non-shows.

Personnally, I propose "light events" not frustration since I'd do the event on my own, but with more it would be more fun ;) if there is transportation or money involved - people can get organized together and I would only accept pay-ahead solutions since I will not pay for non-shows.

I've had "emergencies" even though I'd signed up for activities. I've ALWAYS let the organizer know I couldn't make it beforehand and sent an apology as well as unsubscribing to the event. It's called RESPECT. Surely it only takes a few seconds and would be appreciated...

I find what's worse are those who sign up, show up late with an attitude, sniff around, then just leave! It's VILE. It's so disrespectful for the people who are there and trying to get something going...

organize an event for non-showers and whoever shows up gets banned from glocals )

John. Good idea but does not work. What happens if only a person's friends can see their profile, as is the case with you. 

In my events if I do not know someone, I check their profile to get an idea.  If a cannot access then I might ask for more info or might just advise that the event is full

It could be smelly

no showers;-)

Simple, publicly identify them, as I did! Karin

Trawl my past events?

I created a thread under the same caption as this one-thus easily findable,

do you find having no shows amusing?

hers one option

Well guys, we have to be realistic. The main goal pursued by Glocals founders was to make money out of it. Running a website like this costs money.

For sponsors like UBS, Sunrise and others the admins need to show a high number of members disregarding the fact that maybe half of them have left Switzerland 5 years ago or more.

Other websites handle the problem of no-shows and suggestions were given to the admins but nothing was done to solve this.

Maybe saying this will mean being expelled from this website and you won't see me around anymore.

Richard:

Don't flatter yourself, your post won't get you expelled from glocals...(-; We expel scammers & folks who go on personal attacks, but we don't expel people who give us feedback and point at issues to fix. Au contraire, we thank them for it...Thanks mate! 

All:

No-shows have been an issue for a very long while. We would LOVE to "fix" this, cos it's hurting the organizers, which are the life-blood of glocals. Par contre, it's not that we know a great solution for it and we just don't want to implement it. We simply don't, for now, have a good way of really reducing the no-shows, without adding major work to the organizer or major risk/issue for the people who attend. 

This forum discussion has been terrific, with lots of good ideas coming up, and we thank everyone who is part of it. We looked and analysed every idea that came up. Each has very clear benefits, but also risks. This becomes obvious when you see that each idea posted, immediatly gets lots of supporters + lots of people who point why they don't want.

We're also very closely following other sites that allow people to join events, and it seems everyone is struggling with the same issue. 

All that to say, there's no one obvious solution that everyone will like, or that's proven to work.

The one idea we're looking at most closely right now is the idea to show, on each members profile, the % of events the person showed up to (as % of RSVPs). It won't be only for "bad" members, it will be for every member. Then organizers will be able to set their activity to accept only members with a show-up score of 90% and up, for example. This solution will mean organizers will have to mark who showed up at their activity and who didn't, adding some work. But we think it's do-able.

We also analysed all other ideas that came up in the thread, and let them go for different reasons. 2 examples:

1. Name+Shame publicly people who don't attend.
Yes, this can make some people think twice about pressing "yes". But it also makes things more personal and can also create major bad-blood among members, make people feel singled out, and create general bad vibe on the site.

2. Charge CHF 50 (or another sum) from people who RSVP "yes", and give it back to them only if they actually attend.
Yes, this will cut no-shows. But it's also likely to significantly cut the number of people who even consider attending (not to mention the legal complexity this will create, such as who owns the money collected, who is the money transfered to (glocals? the organizer?), who pays for the online clearning fees (the organizer? glocals? the participant?)) etc.

Our next step is to work with our IT guys to understand how exaclty a solution of showing % no-shows next to each memebrs might work, and try that out on a limited number of activities. We expect this to be ready for testing in Q1 2014.

Nir, glocals admin

Thanks Nir. :-) 

I really appreciate that you take this issue seriously as this definitely is a bore for organizers and also not fair to other participants when an activity is full and that half of the participants do no show up.

For me the best solution is the report as they do on onvasortir.com which really gives an idea on  how somebody is trustworthy according to his participation. 

The principle is:

You give a green light to somebody who attended your event, an orange light to someone who didn't come but apologized and a red light to the one who neither showed up nor apologized.

No-showers should be banned from the site: I had at my Mexican dinner in Lausanne on Wed, Beoneel and Joanna W.: have never heard from them. I gather they feel that being rude is acceptable! They will never be welcome at one of my events.

I do not concur with any kind of public bathing. Let's keep it cool.

I suggest to have the possibility for the organiser to report for a no-show (it can help evacuating the legitimate frustration, also). When this happens, just have a mail automatically sent to the "no-shower" explaining that this is not nice for the organiser to behave as such. 

Let us remember that : 

- sometimes people have a very good reason for not showing up (sickness, travel aleas, traffic jam, etc), and most would apologize by mail or sms, so any "automatic" solution would not be fair,

- unpolite people can be a pain, but hopefully there are a minority at glocals. Let us not bother too much.

Great news Nir! I'm looking forward to 2014 :)

Could you tell me what « public bathing » is, please?

Thanks, R.

Ha ha that´s a good one. Public bashing, not bathing.

I also suggest that one can access and correct one's own post, once posted, in case of spelling mistake !

    

Whew!  That’s a relief, ’cos I had a mental image of no-showers  being coerced into showing all by parading starkers around Les Bains de Pâquis before being thrown into the lake when a black  “bise” is blowing.

The photos would have made a change from all those happy smiling party pix.

R.

@John C: "rude people are not an issue"! Since when? As the organizer of Wed's Mexican dinner, am I supposed to be delighted by the 2 no shoers (Beoneel and Joanna W)? I think NOT!

@Reka1123: What a pleasant comment! Do you assume that you are the only person entitled to post comments on the forum?

Reka:

Why are you getting all angry? Kitty organizes an event and is not happy people say "yes" and don't show up. Maybe for you (and other organizers) the no-shows are less annoying, but for other organizers the no-shows are more annoying. No need to attack her for that. 

Reka:

There's also recent personal attacks (like people telling others to seek counseling) and name calling (like people calling others "killer whale"). Happens even to the best people...

Reka, 

I don't know what got into you about this, I havn't seen you this commited in a while...(-;

To answer what you asked:

1. All legalkitty said was these people didn't show up at her event. No one said or implied they are criminals (except you).  

2. Naming no-shows, and accusing someone of harrasing women, is very different.
Naming someone who didn't show up at an event won't effect the person names in a serious way. But publicly claiming someone is harrasing women can have major effect on the person named. In some cases the damage done is deserved, in other cases it's not. So we recommend to anyone who feels harassed to let us know, and we deal with it very fast and efficiently, even involving the authorities if needed. But that's very different than just saying someone didn't show up at an event. 

Personally I try to do to others what I would like them to do to me... I would not publicly name people even though I do understand the frustration and offense an organizer feels with no shows. ..in the end I'm not sure it will serve for the good of the person that publicly shame people on the forums but maybe I'm wrong. 

I do like the idea of the percentage of showing to an event or not. It is less personal and it gives organizers the right to say yes or no to an invite s request.

its a little strange to see all this hate going around for what seems like a minor offence - a no show at an event, which finally entailed no financial or other loss.

could it be that all this shaming and blaming actually says more about the person posting it, than about the 2 individuals who didnt attend the event?

of course i understand the concern of event organizers that put effort and sometimes money into their activities (i am one of them myself, very occasionally). a constructive discussion  - like here in the thread, with Nir involved - might be more helpful for finding a solution than bashing individual people.

ok, i'm a lurker, but sometime i come up for air when i see something that makes no sense. Like now. 

@giselina: the main hate i see so far is by you and reka hating on legalkitty, all because legalkitty dared be upset over people not showing up for her event. it's amusing you begin your post by bashing legalkitty, and then ending high on the horse by saying lets have a constructive discussion without bashing. very consistant. just like reka complaining people use personal attacks, while telling el kitty to go see a shrink and calling her a whale.

to the point on hand, finally. for me the idea of public naming is ok but it won't stop the issue. most people don't really care if someone wrote they didn't show up, on some forim post. the idea nir mentioned with the grades is worth a shot

if people can take the time to sign up for an event, then they should take the time to opt out and sign out, thus indicating they will not show up. no big effort. however to sign up and not show up without any indication is rude. so be it.

How interesting: one posts and identifies 2 individuals who dîd not show up at a dinner event and - instead of receiving positive replies-one member Reka 1123 suggests that I see a counselor and change my handle to killerwhale, and a nother member, Giselina, suggests that there might be an issue with me.

Somehow signing up for an event, in this case a dinner at a Mexican restaurant in Lausanne, and not showing up despite the fact that I provided my cell phone number and asked that those unable to attend, withdraw prior to noon on the given day, is acceptable. The restaurant manger was kind enough not to ask us to change tables though we were six and not eight.

As an organizer I do not wish to have ill-mannered and disdainful individuals sign up for my events, and I will continue to identify those that do now show up. Karin

I agree when you sign up it´s a minium to cancel if you can not join...but losing your time to the educatation of eachother is losing your time....we can not ask people to be like we want them to be...and tell them you do this or that...if we are all here it's to do activities we like toghether in a nice ambiance not to fight and be unkind...people you do not like just ignore them...the answer of ignorants is The Slient...

Legalkitty,

There is no lack of positive replies - this entire thread is a reaction of organizers and participants who agree with you about how upsetting no-shows can be. The negative reactions generate because you have been more repeatedly outspoken about your single experience. Obviously we don't disagree. Some of us may just find that telling the same story of a commonly shared offense 3 times dilutes the effect and contributes less to the discussion.

With that said, I believe personal insults and sarcastic suggestions of therapy also contribute significantly little to a productive conversation.

"2. Charge CHF 50 (or another sum) from people who RSVP "yes", and give it back to them only if they actually attend."

As both an organiser and attendee I don't like this idea - as an organiser I don't want to take money from people (even if its held by a third party) because as soon as someone does not attend they would complain to me about their money being lost.

As an attendee I don't really like to pay money to someone I don't know, because sadly there are those out there who would scam people (I am not suggesting this is a problem on glocals - I don't recall hearing of any such thing -  but in general I would be wary of this, and avoid pay in advance events unless I know the organiser already)

It depends on the cost of the organisation.  I am organising two one week walking/scrambling holidays in Scotland in May.  It probably will not be announced on glocals as these are club outings (Swiss Alpine club and Geneverando) but even so I am insisting that participants buy their easyjet tickets.  Avfter that I am happy to take the risk on paying deposits etc.

Otheriwse I try to avoid taking money in advance.  At the same time I taker my hat of to organisers brave enough to organise events which involve booking mountain huts in advance or restaurants where no shows can result in additional charges.  I would not do it.

Nor do I take the advantage of booking group tickets on the trains unless I know everybody. This is a pity as you get a 20%? discount on the tickets and one free ticket for every tenth person which can be given to someone without a half fare card.  Even on events with which are nothing to do withglocals the danger exists.

As said some time ago.  I have my black list but those on it do not know that they are restricted to events where a no show is not important.   On other events I simply advise that there is no room     

Just as an aside - I would love to know why Beoneel and Joanna W are not responding. 

Do they know they are being "named and shamed",  are the object of one woman's venom, and causing such a furore on glocals?

And even worse, that they'll never be welcome on any of Legalkitty's events

102 posts later and not a squeak. 

I'd be more concerned that something more serious has happened to one or both of them, than worrying about a no-show at a cheap, Mexican restaurant in Lausanne.

We need to be careful about not going down the route of "guilty until proven innocent" especially when supporting "public floggings".

Carolyn,

Not everyone checks the forums or is active on them. In fact, I would say the majority of Glocal users never look at the forum, however active certain threads may seem.

I agree Elaine, but do you really think Legalkitty would have let them "get away with it" and not told them in advance that she would be using this thread to name and shame?

I mean, that would be the decent thing to do, surely. 

@carolyn: you say "guilty until proven innocent" and "public floggings"...big dramtic words. but The Kitten simply stated a fact that those 2 people didn't show up. it's a fact. it's niether judging someone and finding them guilty nor a public flogging. no need for the extra drama

Carolyn,

The only "Decent" thing to do would have been for these 2 individuals to take 2 seconds of their shcedule, to RSVP NO or at least apologised in a mesage afterwards for not showing up. Again common courtesy or common sense from both an organiser and someone who attends activities.

How someone can just say  "No harm done" really baffles me, yes no one died..but where is the respect people? The fact that people just don't care, makes it less interesting to post activities. And as Nir stated earlier,... "No-shows have been an issue for a very long while. We would LOVE to "fix" this, cos it's hurting the organizers, which are the life-blood of glocals"

No "extra drama" at all Mark (I SO want to call you "Marks"!) just a reflection of the rather imflammatory language that's been a feature on some of this thread.

The Kitten (as you so affectionally call her and nearly made me spill my coffee!) IS being judgemental, both on the thread and publicly to fellow glocals at other events which, I personally, don't appreciate.

All, especially Marc S, Carolyne, LegalKitty:

OK, we covered all bases about LegalKitty's response to the no-shows. Some like her reaction and some don't. Let's pls stop that discussion, which is going no where except into personal insults, and move on. 

Any more ideas on preventing no-shows are very welcome. 

Nir

@ NIR - Come on Nir, I know you are trying to keep the peace but cherry picking your way through discussions is not the way to go, so if we can spend something like 10k comments over the a few years on the topic of no shows (with no progress) then 'naming and shaming' can take a few more days of discussion. Especially when you consider your strange moral lines in protecting some people 'until proven guilty' and not others. (though your reasoning is sound, the damage that could be done in one case is irreparable - but as stated several times the ones mentioned in this thread have unknowingly be thrown out there) For all we know they could have been in the hospital (extreme but you get my point). 

Let me say a big thank yuo those who organise, and funnily enough a thank you (albeit smaller) for those who turn up. One would not survive without the other. So with that in mind, how about we tone the hurt feelings. You all knew (to some extent) the situation with organising. I have had my fair share of the no shows. It's annoying, but let's be fair, if that can derail your day, life must feel like the world is against you.

In fact one of the organisers on here mentioned 'BS alibis' and excuses which gives you an understanding that even when coming with a reason, the organiser is allowed to judge whether the reason is valid or not. (how about that for attacking people personally with literally no personal background)

I would say this is an issue but one blown so far out of proportion, because really people only get away with what you let them. 

@Mark Spencer - @carolyn: you say "guilty until proven innocent" and "public floggings"...big dramtic words. but The Kitten simply stated a fact that those 2 people didn't show up

LegalKitty's own words : 'Not sure how you can not be disgusted by no-shows'.

My 2 cents for a solution, it would have to be either some kind of strikes system or a percentage system. BUT in both cases total control is with the organiser and from what I have gathered, they can keep grudges and who would regulate. So if we are going to have attendance % then we should have quality of organisation % etc (you can average the respondents to keep out anomalies) because you cant have it both ways. In the same way that some people will be rude and inconsiderate and not tell you that they are not coming, in the same way that one event may fall short of the normal quality for any number of reasons. BUT there must be a way for rendemption otherwise you will have people not responding when they would most likely have gone.

The problem I have with all of this is the judgement based on one inaction which could be for a million reasons. Calm your collective beans.

John: i thought we had that question and that answer already...post 76 is my reply, i don't have much to add to it. When I do, I'll happily post it here. 

Frazam: enough with the legalkitty/carolyn stuff, it's not adding anything to move towards a solution. If you'll feel better then let's agree that legalkitty is all wrong and you/Carolyn are all right, and then move on. 

John:

I'm flattered you respect the admin's view, that's probably a first...(-; The admin's view is summarized in post 76, incl direct feedback on the idea with the money

Thanks for the sarcastic comment Nir, a little surprising but oh well.

That part wasnt about the solution it was about the people who want to implement a new system taking a good long look at how they are percieving their 'potential customers' or in your case, your actual clients. Retorting with hyperbolic statements and 'this one time at any event I organised...' anecdotes by them and sarcasm/inaction from you.

So far I've learnt it is fine to have a go at participants be it show or non-show, and that you will most likely protect organisers over them. Which is fine if we know thats the way it is.

So far we have had the crazy knee-jerk emotional response like ban them all, charge them whatever fee feels right to the organiser as a deposit (across the board) and mixed in with a few more timid versions.

The whole point of idea progress is that you should only repeat it if you've added to it. You my friend have added nothing new, I at least mentioned a reverse system too and the ability to build your credibility back up, as well as using averages so as not to let one muppet unfairly drag down an organisers good work. So please feel to not ignore the bulk of what looks like an essay and 'cherry pick' a couple of lines out.

my last comment might seem harsh but if you are going to make a mountain out of this, then let's put overreactionary emotion aside and discuss.

Farzam:

Honestly, i want to learn from each comment so we end up doing the right thing, but I don't understand what you're suggesting.

So far, our lead option is to allow the organizers to mark "show" or "no show" for all participants, and this will result in a "% show" number on each members' profile. Of course this solution has issues like all other solutions, but it's the best one that came up so far, I think. If you have a better idea, I'd love to hear it, really.  

No problem to write anything harsh or direct, just be specific about the idea you have. Thanks

Appreciate that response Nir.

Things sound much clearer in my head than when they exit my mouth... (or keyboard in this instance)

We could the following:

% for attendance after sign-up
a varying deduction can be made depending on how long prior to event kick-off does the attendee inform the organiser of non-attendance. So if you let them know between 24-48hrs great, 12-24 not so great, within the last 12hrs even worse, and then the largest deduction for those who dont show or let the organiser know. (this obviously varies according to event, as some require months of early sign ups)

This will need to be countered with a slight increase in score for every event you do attend, so people can get back their credibility. I would say probably the amount that is taken off for not letting someone know prior to 48 hrs before event kick off. So a small increment as a no show is worse than showing up in the grand scheme of things.

You would need a rating system for events organisers too, similar but based on the ratings given by those who attend. This needs to be weighted as not to allow one or two people to decimate someones rating. Also in the same way, they should be allowed to increase their score after losing some points.

I would say that there needs to be some kind of strike out system as well as the ability to appeal. For example, if the person comes up with an adequate reason or whatever it is, then it has to go to an unbiased individual to decide and it cant be either organiser/attendee or Admin as none of the 3 are impartial.

The strike out system is only fair as any system needs the stick as well as the carrot. So I would say that if you completely miss 3 events that are very much based on numbers/money (sorry I dont feel restaurants fall under this category - More like renting things or booking tickets etc) then you should have a blackout period of 1/2 months and go up on a wall of shame. 2 times on the wall of shame should be a 4 month ban.

Equally though, if organisers do something ridiculous (i wont cite examples as we all have some) then they should also have a striking system too as well as having to answer for it. (this is something I feel you will need to be strict on which wont be easy).

I can entirely understand than some people feel they should involve money as it keeps people more honest, but this is a dangerous road. Sure you can go down the road of setting up systems, third partys etc, but at the end of the day there will pretty heavy arguements, so I would suggest having either a quick meet up prior to an event to collect money from those who want in and those who dont, can just not. This will need some kind of 'contract' as silly as it seems just to have something to prove of an agreement. This could be something as simple as person A is holding deposit money for person B in reference to event X (as you might have noticed, I ain't no law boy).

Thoughts?

and for ducksake, put in a bloody edit button.

Also a waiting list for those maybes which can take a spot, but will automatically give it up to someone who is certain they are going. So if one pulls out, then other one falls into their place. And if they decide to not go, the waiter can be back in a potential spot.

Just a quick note passing by...

Not showing up at an event you signed up to doesn't necessarily mean you're the "diavolo incarnato". I think the majority of no-showers just need more awareness (but they most certainly never read the threads on this forum). I know some of them, such as Beoneel, who are very nice people. On the other hand, it's interesting to read the comment of a regular no-shower mentioning that it is rude...

Nir, I am looking forward to the % show trial. It's probably not the ideal solution, but I think it's the best I've seen so far.

But only if Rudolph’s guiding and running the slay – oophs, sorry folks! – sleigh.

Compliments of the season to you all.

R.

Ah I did not mean people should not be allowed to take money - just that I object to it being made compulsory. I compltely understand some activities cost money and it might be needed for an organiser to charge in those cases. Personally though I prefer to organise free activities, so would not like to have to deal with everyones 50 chf deposits (even if they go to a glocals bank account, I would still feel responsible for what happens to the money deposits on my events)

Lets not forget the main reason of this thread: 

Kindly click "NO" after clicking "YES" if you cannot make it to the event. 

That way you make the organizer's life easy!..

We need re education camps for no shows people.. we give them a rec card today and tomorrow tomorrow Poland!!! 

Be careful ladies and gentlemen with taste of power in the hands of ordinary people like us, OVS is not the mirrow to look into... I ve seen people there acting as Commanders when they re just running an activity...  

I don't organise a huge amount but have organised a few things where no-shows have been an issue. My 2c would be:

- I like the idea of some mechanism for organisers to indicate who didn't show. But on a practical level, can you make sure that the status defaults to "Showed Up". I'm just thinking of a scenario where someone organises a hike with, say, 30 people signed up. There are 3 no-shows. The organiser should only have to make 3 status changes to show this, not manually set the majority who did show. This is just a time saving thing. Have I confused everyone here???

- There should be some "right of reply". Organisers can make mistakes... It would be good to have some way to get a status corrected without it being totally dependent on the original organiser remembering to correct it. 

- Anything where money automatically changes hands is a bad idea. Of course in specific, individual cases organisers will need to ask for money but it should not be compulsory.

:-)

I organised over 100 events in the last seven months, mostly in Basel. Most of them are open events, like local hikes, weekly drinks etc. where I don't police no-shows.

The events I do care are those like the "Dine @" (where I make reservations at restaurants) or hikes that require more planning.

For the non-local hikes, I don't use the "RSVP without approval" format, but one of the others. Before accepting anyone I don't already know and trust, I talk (or email) before. I also try to get a phone number.

For the "Dine @" I use the "RSVP without approval" but have had some bad experiences. When someone does not show up, I'll write them and if they have a good reply, they get yellow-listed, no reply means black-listing.

At the moment, I have two black-listed and one yellow-listed people.

I was thinking about opening an bank-account so that I could bigger events, or at least events, where I organise tickets. Not sure, if I would use a glocals account though.

@Carlos S: There are strange people on all sites, but one should not generalize the attitude of organizers. Have been on OVS for nearly 4 years and my experience has been positive.

Karin

Personally I do not like so much this idea of publishing a no-show % in the member profile. I find it both not cool and not very efficient. I can tell you, there are amazing situation that you encounter when you organize an event (ie : be told "but this is how I would organize it" whereas the person never organized anything, etc). Again, I think that we are talking of an estimated 10% who mishave, so really a minority. It is annoying, it does cost some energy to the organizer, but it is really not a drama.

How does it work in the real life : you just do not invite the unpolite person the next time. From there, I believe that the only issue lies with open events, that anyone can join without approval from the organizer. It happened to me to tell to a few persons "hey, please just do not attend any of the future events that I will organize" : I understand that it is not nice to hear such a phrase, but at least it is discrete and, I would think, fair. The only problem is that there is a predictible reverse phenomenon, which is to be "awarded" some negative buzz (I know that one criticized me in my back afterwards, not really brave whereas I had handled my communication in a direct one-to-one mode).

So, a solution could be to allow the organizer to block someone for the future events that he/she will organize ? This does not translate into any public communication and it can ease the efforts of the organizer. I would not call it a "blacklist" (not a very positive word, is it), but kind of "a list of people that I do not wish to have on my events" ("neutralized" list ?).

Anyway, let's focus on the nice folks around ! 

I share Carlos's point of view, Karin, and I don't see why we should avoid to express it.

Why not add a "pin to my activities" button, in the same way I can remove myself when I'm invited somewhere but cannot join? There have been similar suggestions in the thread already, but let me elaborate.

This way I could - for myself! - keep an event visible and see if my schedule/the weather/my mood clears up. I haven't signed up yet, but will eventually make a decision - later. Not now. Later. Give the organizer an option to set a black-out time, depending on the lead time this is being organized with and how easy or difficult it is to find others to join if I can't make it. Let's call it a "waiting list"? So, as was posted above, 15 attendees and 15 "maybes"? That will be confirmed for 15 people, not 30. If you're late to confirm, tough luck. Could've joined earlier, you know... ;-)

Say: Let's go to Mexico next summer! (Black-out time: one month)

Let's have a hike/ski trip! (Two/three days)

Let's have pizza! (12 hours, as restaurants usually accept changes in the morning for the evening)

!The above are examples I just shot out of my fingers, so don't kill me if you don't agree on them!

Let the glocals system remind me (periodically?) that I have "pinned" an event, but have not replied yet, so I can check my schedule and take action. Perhaps my personal schedule is so variable that I may not know at one point if I will attend an event, and then forget I already joined because my ADD with 30-second attention span made me forget. Or I'm looking for something to do on Saturday night, on different days, and forget to update the others I have joined already when I find the one I *am* going to attend. I agree that as an organizer you'd like the rest of the world to tick on your clock, but that's not going to happen.

Black-out reached and I did not confirm? Then drop me out of the list, no harm done. You have one less no-show, and I went on with my life, without needing to fear semaphore-ratings, owing my life savings to glocals, public bashing and being hung from the Zytglogge. I simply won't need to make up that my cat died for the third time in a month or that I'm stranded in London/South Africa/Antarctica.

But if X of the confirmed attendees do drop out for any reason, allow the organizer to woo me into joining ("best party/hike/ski run of the year!"). Hey, you are organizing and believe you will be doing something that will add a positive experience to my life. Let me know, market yourself and your event! Nir is already doing this for the musical chairs dinners: he sends a message to get more people when there are still spots available, first come, first served.

I agree on being nice, but some people simply forget, are overwhelmed by greater problems in their lives, or just don't care. Being "sensible" should be the rule, let's put tools in place for all the others.

To get back to "solutions" and the % rating system, most of the suggestions above, puts the onus on the organiser to "rate" people (in whatever fashion), post-event.

As a (reasonably) regular organiser, I struggle to even post photos after my events, so could I really be arsed to a) have a check list of who signed up, b) check off who turned up c) log on to glocals and spend valuable time giving them a green, red or amber light?

There is enough work for organisers to do pre-event, without giving them more work to do post-event.

We all orlganise stuff because we would either be doing it anyway, but would be happier doing it with company, or for sense of community involvement and giving something back to our community.

Once a "police-ing system" comes into it and we're making judgements about our community, rather than mildly irritating observations then I don't feel we can move forward as a community, in a constructive manner.

When a certain person made a declaration (at a totally unrelated event) on Sunday that she was going to take great pleasure in "naming and shaming" her no-shows, I can assure you that no-one stepped forward to congratulate her.

As one relatively newbie said rather shrewdly "why would she want to make enemies of her "friends?".

Why indeed.

Best idea so far. Something I've done for certain events where we are dependant on the number of people attending for discounts. I had one where 8 out of 20 showed up with no explanation before or after. So when two of them  tried to sign up for other events I removed them telling the why. Nothing public but they get the message. 

Either that or I step up my type of list! 

Hahahaha - thanks Rich!! This is my ringtone on my mobile (just in case you have to ring me to cancel or be a "no-show - you're Bill!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185exXeZhLI

Pierre:

I love the simplicity of this solution (and the fact it's not been brought up before!). The down-side of it, compared to the solution of showing an average % no-show for each members, is that it doesn't "warn" other organizers about serial non-showers. So the only way an organiser will learn someone tends to not show up, is the hard way. 

As said before, no solution we'll be perfect: each one will have some good and some bad, liked by some and hated by others. My personal preference is still for the rating system, despite its flaws. 

Nir

Take the number of people who "joined" the event, DIVIDED it for two. That's it. Simple&Easy *.*

Ah, btw, how can you avoid it? Like the rain, with an umbrella.....................

Thanks Stefano. 

In the coming months we'll already change the number of reminders sent to people who who clicked "yes". Currently these folks get just 1 reminder, 24 hours before the event. 

I'm in half-mind about the waiting list / "maybe" status / pinned event idea (with reminders of "decided if you're in or out"). I see the benefits in it, I am a little concerned with the complexity it may add to the system. For now i can't promise anything concrete about it, except that we'll look at it more closly. 

Carolyn:

If we move to the rating system of no-shows, then organizers will not have to provide judgement. They'll just have to provide fact: did person X join or not join. Some edge cases might require judgement (the person didn't show up for a good reason, etc), but I think that will be a minority.  

You raised another point, about the rating system adding work for the organizers. That is very true and it's a real weakness in the rating system approach. We can simplify the rating process a lot, but there'll still be more work for the orgaizers.

Alan: 

You're developed your own system to select who joins, which seems to work for you. That system requires a lot of time from you: emailing the people before the event, getting their number, etc. 

If you had a magic wand and you could change the glocals system into anything you wanted, how would you change it to make your life easier when organizing your events?

Nir

Pierre:

Thinking about your suggestion again, it's actually something we can implement fast, while still implementing other solutions for no-shows, such as the rating system.

In other words, it's not the "block people from joining my event" OR the "% no-show rating", but it can be both of them. 

Did you see other examples of where this "block from joining" system works, just so I can show it to the techies real fast?

Thanks, Nir

Nir,

thanks for the compliment. Technically it should not too difficult, I think, just an additional table and a few screens to enhance. I do not have any example to refer to, though (but that's called 'innovating', right ?)..

About the no show %, let's look at it from another angle : what if the no-shower (this really bad guy or girl, bouh) just does not know anyone else at the event he/she is joining, and had an awful week at work, wishes to go to this cool event, but finally is really not in the mood for it. Yes the organiser of the event can feel legitimately upset and not invite him/her again, but should the no-shower be publicly punished or restricted to join other events ? Such a statistic does convey a judgement, whereas you have no idea of the life of this person.

Finally what is the stake : the efficiency in organizing events, or whether the community built from a website is a welcoming one?

Phrased differently: Let us be careful about the internet that we shape, and let's keep it "human". 

it is just a point of view of course. Your call eventually.

Personally I like the idea of average percentage no show. I also like the idea of a maybe button. At the moment if people are no shows, i just dont invite them again. It would be easier if we as organisors could just remove them from the group after 3 or 4 no shows. The simpler we keep it, the better it is :)

just my opinion.

K 

Thinking about the no-shower blocking function, I am wondering if I would actually use it. I like the idea of giving people the opportunity to evolve. After 3 years and 130 events, I can only think of 2 very rude cases I would rather avoid in future. So it would have to be an easily revocable function. Then I am wondering if once you've given this blocking "authority" to organizers, how can you make sure it is used for acceptable reasons and not abusive ones such as ethnicity, religion, you name it...

Aside the average % no-show, it might be good to implement a series of communication campaigns in order to help people to improve their awareness by looking at the issue from different angles.

I sympathise with organisers who spend many hours planning, only to encounter "no-shows". However, I am curious if this issue plagues certain types of events, and not others.

In our group (Scuba Group), we have organised approximately 350 events, and no-shows are very rare (say, 1 in 50 events?). When it does happen, it is irritating, but thankfully it isn't frequent so we wouldn't require any modification to the site. It would be interesting to see some statistics that reveal what sorts of events suffer from no-shows. It may take a year or two to gather sufficient data, but it would be an interesting exercise because then you could develop a targeted approach to this problem.

Our general strategy for posting events is to keep the event information rather clinical and rigid. For example, we would write that participants must fullfill the following criteria to attend... 1), 2), 3)...etc. I suspect this turns many people away because it appears unfriendly, but we also know that people who have indicated they will turn up have thought it through. I'm not sure how you would translate that into an description for a meal at a restuarant, but our experience suggests this approach helps to diminish the problem for sporting events.

I can't help but agree with "spikings" (Richard, are you out there somewhere!!).  I also tend to be quite "strict" with my posts and I have had very little experience of no shows.

As an example, I used to get peed off with my "Movie Group" if people are dependent on other people to share their half price (Orange) ticket, but because I've been a bit "strict" and reminded people that they will be letting down their fellow glocals if they don't show, the problem seems to have disappeared and, in fact, other glocals have been amazingly generous in offering their Orange "half price" codes. 

I'm actually always amazed at the generousity and "team spirit" of most glocals members.

On other non-financial events, then it doesn't really matter and I don't really care who shows up or doesn't.  It's only when there is car pooling to be considered, that it gets complicated which is why I try to organise most of my hikes with CFF/SBB.

So maybe the message is to the organisers to toughen up with their posts, as "spikings" has already suggested, or as Izzie suggests in post 147 - maybe we need to look at this from "different angles". 

As an aside - when I first joined glocals, Izzie busted my balls several times (in a nice way NCL sort of way) for not turning up to her Cafe Philo - I soon learned!!

@nir: i like the idea of showing a % no show for each member. 

@pierre: your argument is that if someone has a valid reason for not showing up, she shouldn't be penalised by the rating system.

first, the organiser can always decide to not mark her as no-show if her reason is valid.

second, if someone doesn't show up to 4 of 5 events, for example, then i as an orgnizer don't really care why she didn't show up. it might be for a great reason, but the fact remains she's 80% likely to stand me up next time. if i have this info from the rating system i can decide if to allow her to join my activity or not

@carolyn: what judgement? if the person showed up you mark yes, if the person didn't show up you mark no. you're not being asked to judge if the person is kind of mean, or to judge anything. just state the simple fact

Okay, so I had an event last night where 9 out of 16 didn't turn up and only 2 out of the 9 gave reasons. To be honest answering the original question, I think that no matter what measures are put in place people will do whatever they feel like.

Personally I won't organise any more events as I just can't be bothered. The good thing is the number of great people I've been lucky enough to meet and so will just meet with them 'off the radar'.

Rich:

When the rating system is done, you'll be able to tell the system to only accept RSVPs from folks who have a good track record of showing up, based on previous behaviour. It doesn't mean all of them will show up, but it will surely increase the show rate. 

The people who are more likely to pull no-shows will still pull no-shows, but you'll know their track record and you'll be able to pre-block them, automatically, from joining your activities. 

I agree with Mark's point to Pierre. If someone is a serial no-shower, then organizers would benefit from knowing about this, regardless of what reason the person had for not showing up each time. 

To clarify: the no-show rating system is only there to signal a person's no-show track record. It's not there to say if there's good or bad or nice or mean. 

Surely what you should be doing is putting a couple of ideas out there and having the community vote? 

"Nothing destroys a good idea faster than mandatory consensus."

Not all the participants in Glocals check the website enough to provide a complete survey of what people would "prefer." I'd say the best method is to create a system based on the opinions that have been voiced here, then tweak it if complaints and suggestions cause it to lean a certain way. I think there are quite a number of good ideas already.

It doesn’t take a brilliant mind to realize, that once you start kneecapping “no-shows”, the problem will start to vanish.

Who said mandatory? Interesting quote, but that was in reference to deep deliberation amongst a large group. This is a ~choice survey, no feedback at that stage just a choice of 3. As with literally all surveys, not everyone votes anyway. I would rather have less than 30% of glocals vote than leave it down to 20 not-so-pleased organisers. Choosing a system to place onto everyone else without their consultation isn't exactly best practice either, thats actually called something else. And are we disbanding the idea of a %/star rating system for organisers?

@nir: i would vote for not putting this to the vote. you saw from this thread that each idea that comes up has goods and bads, likers and haters. a vote will just confirm that. take the % no show idea (or any other idea you think has most ups and lead downs) and run it, and then tweek as you move along. if it doesn't work, kill it. if it works, evolve it

@fazam: this is no dig. form the length of your posts and your like of consensus, i bet you work for the un. am i right? no dig, i mean it. 

Not all of us working for the UN are wordy or love bureaucratic consensus.

All:

To summarize the action we'll take:

1. We'll implement 2 ideas stemming from this thread, in Q1 2014:

- "block from joining" button for organizers
- measure showing for each members their % no-show history 

2. We'll launch the above 2 in very simple format at first, with minimum extra features. After it's live for a while, we will collect feedback and then begin evolving the functions. We do this cos a ton of learnings come in only after the feature is live.

3. The idea to allow participants to rank events & event organizers is good, and we'll make it happen in a future wave, but not in Q1.  

Big thanks again to everyone who took part in this thread.

Nir

But it does show that the person is so self-centered that he/she has no consideration for anyone else – and, in my book, that’s no bad thing.

Who are these presumptuous people who are so busy doing heaven knows what that they can’t spare a couple of minutes to send an apology?

R.

Glocals' users have had all the opportunities to express themselves on this thread and the previous ones that raised the same issue or to report any concerns they've had to the admins. I don't think it's a good idea to put this to vote although it sounds democratic and fair. Not everybody feels concerned or even interested.

In a community we often need to rely on others to make decisions for us. It doesn't mean you totally surrender your freedom of choice or of expression, it means you trust other people to take a fair decision for the good of the community. Ultimately in this case, it's Nir and Oded's call.

@Mark No dig taken Mark  , I see it more as a roundabout compliment. But I do not work for the UN, though I have a science background so I think thats where it comes from. But in my mind, it's pretty normal to have a consensus and not only from the people who immediately benefit from the implementation of something. 

@Nir- completely agree that you will have more positive feedback when it goes live, but I still feel that you should put even something as simple as a 2 choice survey, give them a week, and I promise you will get a fair people responding. Surely you would be interested to know some kind of general consensus prior to launch?

But unless asked, I will put that point to bed, as i've made my point and don't want to just spam this thread over and over.

@ Izzie - you cant have it both ways, either enough people are interested/concerned about this in which case implementation is worthwhile, or not enough people are interested/concerned, which means this is being done for a very small number of people, in which case absolutely there should be a vote.

And on your point of 'they had their chance', you're kidding right? was this called 'give your vote on the new rating attendee rating system'? a fair few people will not want to get caught up in this kinds of threads, and certainly wont trawl through 159 messages to find out whats going on. Unless you tell people to give their view on a new broad-reaching implementation, then you cant turn around and be like well you had your chance in that one thread about the consequence of a issue we are thinking of addressing, that has come up a few times over the years...

It's weird that there is such resistance to informing the majority who most likely have no idea about this plan. 

(can you tell its a slow work day...)

A slow work day for you Farzan?

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

LOL.

Great, what a memorable thread for me. I'm so flattered, I'm flying :))

Thanks Nir, you made a good resolution for 2014. So good to analyze & create solutions and am sure you'll be able to reduce (not abandon) it. Good luck to the team.

I also thank all others for your inputs & wish you a happy ending 2013 with lots of glocal events for 2014.  

The way you're presenting this makes it sound to me as something much more serious than it is. We are not discussing some irrevocable death penalty law here. This is not a democraty, it's a private company responding to the laws of a democracy but ultimately the management of that company gets to take the decisions and there is no breaking law at stake here. We are far more consulted than on any other website like Facebook or Amazon. Do you have a right to vote there? What I am saying is that a vote on a website such as this one is nothing else than a mean of expression. And before voting users will need to be well informed and aware. I am in favour of a communication campaign though because it can help with an amount of no-shows.

Lunch break over - Have a nice afternoon guys! 

@Richie, I'm far too hungover you'll have to explain that one to me. 

@Izzie - Hyperbole apparently begets hyperbole ( 'irrevocable death penalty law' / 'breaking laws'...)

Facebook makes changes and people are incredibly unhappy about it, and that is a huge company which can afford to piss off as many people as it likes because most people are far too commited to it. Every single time they change something a majority of people complain. Difference being, they have over 1 billion users. They can afford to lose a million or two.

I would imagine Nir and Oded would prefer to keep their clients happy. and your point about this not being a democracy and that it is a private company, not the most pleasant view to have about clients/users. 

An expression for sure, but an expression that they care about their clients/users. This is probably what bothers me. why would you not want to hear from the majority of your users?

@ Farzan

What’s it worth?  (But be aware that my vernacular coaching fee ain’t cheap.)

Loads of LOL, R.

Facebook can probably afford to lose a million users, yet that's probably not what they're aiming to. Regardless, these websites are private companies and I am sorry if you don't like the sound of it. It is just the reality.

I honestly don't see any added value to a vote regarding this issue.

How would this be representative? Who would actually take the time and bother since the whole problem comes from the fact that people just don't...  How is this idea realistic and practical?

Personally I find Nir's proposal good enough and he already said that we will be able to give feedbacks.

That will be my conclusion.

Season greetings & best wishes!

I think perhaps we might reduce the no-shows if we took away some of the "technical" reasons people don't show.  Because we all know that some users RSVP so they can:

- See how many people have RSVPd and if anyone they already know is going (women and shy users especially don't like going out totally alone to an event so may RSVP to see who else is attending -- a safety thing.  At the same time others may RSVP to see the ratio man/woman attending (preferring to attend all-women, all-men or well-mixed events).

- Get the reminders that the event is happening so they can decide closer to the date

In both cases, often the person "waits & sees" but then forgets, RSVPs late (online only) OR ends up offline or only on a mobile phone the day or two before the event and is unable to change his/her RSVP or contact the organiser before the event takes place.

So with the above said,  Stefano's suggestion above to allow for "pinning" might be a good idea.   It would work similar to "Maybe" on other sites but as it is a pin or reminder to the user the organiser of the event & RSVPs wouldn't need to see the name.  If said person then missed the event, it wouldn't be a "no-show"...

-M

I Suggest

Yes

No

Maybe.

and the organizer of the event can choose the third , if he/she fells that event is not have any problems with no shows. If an event is considered a 'financial commitment' then that activity admin should take the time to give 'true and accurate count'. which will effet a Glocals members rating. One issue is if someone cancels 24 hours before???? Where is the line drawn for such, because this is the case very often.

dear Nir,

first i would like to thank you and your colleagues for the excellent effort you are doing in glocals. i can tell you are efficient ,elastic and give sensible solutions.

may i suggest a solution , maybe it is not good, but it costs nothing to think about it.

the idea is simple: that on every systemitically a note  reminding that it if the person registred to an event, then changes his mind, he or she must take off her participation from the event, and to add that some special events (like restaurants or visits with car sharing ,the answer would be earlier).explaining that other wise this would cause organizers trouble etc..

advantage of this solution : 1.very easy to implement on glocals

                                        2. it gives responsability of the user of glocals

                                         3. this solutions will not annihilate no show ups,but this can certainly dimisnish the no show up, even though if the number of now show ups, dimish by 10% or 20% this would be already a substantial gain

you can try this solution ,which is easy and simple, then later put on the solution you propose.as using statistics , and block buttons for organizers,

nevertheless may i make a constructive critic about the statistics and block button ?

the idea of this rule is very good, nevertheless in implementing any new rule, we should be able to imagine how it would be perverted from its original aim, this is a doctrine taught in schools of law when it comes to implementing rules-

it can be scary that some organizers can block some people for other reasons than no show ups, and also the feeling of exclusion it may create for some people.personal statistics are good, but there is always a risk of stigmitization.

so i think we canin the first place try to " responsabilize" people, by a simple solution, then you can use the statistics or block button  later....

by the way there is ALREADY a solution on Glocals !!!there is an option to answer with approval, and there is a third option i believe.

by the way in some events ( not all) a solution can be made by a simple calculation of the organizer, i organized some events and i give myself a margin of 20 or 30% no show ups. but i wrote this is only for some events and not for others when it is necessary to know the exact number, ( restaurants, etc...) buying collective tickets previously....

i mean a note on every activity, put systematically by glocals

Never ending thread for a small problem

I am doing 100 % no show events for a while now.... Not saying that my way of doing things is for everyone or for every area but....

Simple solution worked for me:

1. Send a reminder message 3 days before to remind them that if they can't make it they should change their RSVP. -- polite tone

2. Events where no payment required such as bar gatherings i really dont mind but paid events people are to pay in advance ...if they cancel last minute no refunds.

3. Events where no payment required but limited space. I wait till i can approach them directly in public and confront them that what they did is not right n for next time there will be consequences.

4. Let other organizers know as well.

5. Black listk of my own -haven't used it for over 1.5 years.

PROBLEM SOLVED :) 

Good luck !!

*****No show FREE events :)))))

Touché !

Can't believe I have to reply to this thread to stop receiving notifications...

:) 

When i organize i put a lot of effort in and make it perfect. Not many organizers in Bern so no issue but if there were i would create an email distro list n send updates whenever a new name is added.

As for consequences......:) nothing that stupid as drone strike but just some waterboarding Guantanamo Bay style ;)    Naaah ! Simply let all the other organizers know the name with a polite request to block him/her from the events.

Just the warning works never ever had to put it to test :) 

Cheers....me off the thread now

Sorry dude .... I woundn't trust English people with taser guns :)

Simple reason:

 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/17/police-taser-blind-man-stick

Gaudi:

1. We already have an auto alert that goes out 1 day before each activitiy to everyone who signed up for the activity, reminding them of it and asking them to ensure their RSVP status is right cos it's important for the organizer's efforts. We'll include another email alert that will go out 3 days before each event, but I think it won't make a drastic change from the current situation.  

2. I agree that the "block person X from joining my activity" function might be abused by some organizers. But: i) already now any member can block others from emailing + chatting with them, and so far we have heard of zero abuse of this. ii) I think the benefits of the blocking system will outweigh the potential few folks who might abuse it. I might be totally wrong here (won't be the 1st time), but we'll know soon enough.

Nir  

Please close this thread....boring!!

Yes Angie. After your 182nd reply to this thread from around 40 members it shall close for now. Haha. Greetings & see you next year.... maybe with something less boring...