Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => Audax => Topic started by: Martin on 24 November, 2008, 09:12:47 pm
-
q
-
Some older organisers have rudimentary computers at best and only dial-up interwebs.
The dependence on technology has caused the likes of Jim Swan to pack their bags...
-
Some older organisers have rudimentary computers at best and only dial-up interwebs.
The dependence on technology has caused the likes of Jim Swan to pack their bags...
One can see the dilemma ... perhaps some sort of volunteer arrangement would work whereby someone who is computer savvy could do the techno stuff for a non-techie organiser?
Within reason, I would be willing to undertake that sort of role.
It would be criminal if technology drove people away and events were lost :(
Rob
-
Here's one reason I don't appear on here by name as I've just landed an IT job :-[
does any one have a method for copying the online start sheet into Excel without getting those annoying new drop down insurance boxes appearing in the surname column? I'm desperately trying to get a start sheet for tomorrow and most of the riders appear to be called AUK v ???
-
I think the easiest way is to use the tiny-print link at the bottom: "Download to Excel" or similar.
This gives a mass of comma-separated text; copy that, then paste into Excel. (then do text->columns if you want, but you will at least have all the names by this stage!)
EDIT: Download Excel Start List gives you an excel file straight away.
-
oh no; not the csv file :o
I thought we'd lost all that when we stopped having to add addresses to the brevet cards;
thanks I'll try it :thumbsup:
-
Excel can read CSV files easily enough. I just double clicked one this afternoon et voila, open in Excel
-
it was even easier than that :-[ just click on the Excel file download and hey presto there it is all ready to go :thumbsup:
-
The biggest problem with the organisers' online pages is that the occasional user never finds all the functions, especially if they're not very computer literate to start with. I don't know whether it would be possible to redesign them to make them more intuitive (I'm not even sure what 'intuitive' might mean for a very occasional computer user).
-
A rather different question for the YACF "OLs":
is there any reason we couldn't post the current entry list for an event (assuming we host our own web page)? Either jsut MemNos, or surnames as well?
Might save on some entry confirmations.
Ian: I think you're right. Just 9 months away from the thing and it's all greek again. The event "main edit page" is particularly non-intuitive, tho as you say it does everything you need. Difficult to fix: maybe a first-timers instruction video?!?
Mr Zoom: Glad you got there in time. Just like to point out my edit:
EDIT: Download Excel Start List gives you an excel file straight away.
:smug:
-
A rather different question for the YACF "OLs":
is there any reason we couldn't post the current entry list for an event (assuming we host our own web page)? Either jsut MemNos, or surnames as well?
I like your thinking. I actually think it's the postal entries rather than the "OLs" who are more likely to wonder if their entry has been received. After all, online entries will have received an acknowledgement email and even perhaps an e-Routesheet
What I don't know is whether some entrants would object to the whole wide world knowing that they are due to be away from home on a certain date for a long cycle ride. Perhaps such a list of pre-ride entries would have to be password-protected
-
what would be really nice from a GdS (and possibly RRTY) pov would be the ability to download finish lists as Excel (presumably they are held in that format somewhere) so I could collate all the eligible rides together and then go through and sort by AUK number or surname to see who had done 5 :thumbsup:
A rather different question for the YACF "OLs":
is there any reason we couldn't post the current entry list for an event (assuming we host our own web page)? Either jsut MemNos, or surnames as well?
there's one I can think of; some YACF's don't want their real names appearing here
-
there's one I can think of; some YACF's don't want their real names appearing here
The AUK website publishes the name of event finishers, SRs, etc.
No reason why it could not also publish GdS, RRTY, whatever.
No reason why organiser websites cannot publish lists of entrants.
The issue is of linking real names and forum IDs, here or elsewhere.
YACF is not an AUK resource and should not be treated as such.
YACF is YACF and AUK is AUK and ne'er the twain should meet.
There's no perfect way to police this though. Ultimately it's down to YACF posters and mods.
ISTM.
-
YACF is not an AUK resource and should not be treated as such.
YACF is YACF and AUK is AUK and ne'er the twain should meet.
I agree; YACF has (to its credit) become the accepted forum where AUK matters are discussed rather than the yahoo list, but it's still unknown to a large majority of AUK members.
There is no need for start lists to be available; you know straight away if your Paypal entry has gone though as both the rider and the organiser get an email (and the transaction is held in Paypal's website). For paper entries the cheque usually gets cashed within a week or so of receipt, and the rider just waits for the route sheet to arrive*. I think I can count on the fingers of one finger how many entries have got delayed or lost in the post in 5 years of organising.
* or not; Brian Mann sent me an entry along with a bundle of DIY entries and I overlooked it; he just got on the blower this week and I sorted it all out OK.
the biggest issue I face with online entry is the route sheet; I try to only have one copy in circulation so that I know that if it's wrong they are all wrong. But in my area the route sheet goes out of date on pretty much a weekly basis due to signposts breaking off (and even being officially removed), so despite what the organisers' guidelines says about Paypal entry, I'm going to start a contact list for online entrants and send all the route sheets out together both electronic and paper and putting them online much nearer the date of the event in future.
-
It is common practice for overseas 1000s and 1200s to have published entry lists. RUSA entry lists are regularly published, usually behind RUSA password access, I believe.
-
online start sheets are available to organisers; however they also double (or even triple) up as finish lists and also as a database for creating labels. I've no idea if the technology is there to have publicly visible start lists on the AUK website prior to the event; but even if there was organisers are not obliged to add non- AUK members to it and I assume the AUK validators don't (many events just list the number of non member finishers)
-
A more general issue for online orgs is of (possibly inadvertantly) publishing email addresses.
ISTM good practice to mailout materials addressed to myself as primary recipient and others as bcc (blind carbon copy).
-
I'm still waiting for online non-member entry; these are to me the people we should be catching as many seasoned AUK's (but decreasing each year) seem to prefer filling out forms and using cheques. The general public must find it a PITA.
almost all my DNS yesterday were non AUK, AUK get I assume zip from these riders (not even the ones who have paid the £2 day insurance), unless the cost of the brevet card includes a levy?
-
I'm still waiting for online non-member entry; these are to me the people we should be catching as many seasoned AUK's (but decreasing each year) seem to prefer filling out forms and using cheques. The general public must find it a PITA.
almost all my DNS yesterday were non AUK, AUK get I assume zip from these riders (not even the ones who have paid the £2 day insurance), unless the cost of the brevet card includes a levy?
Overnight rain in 2009 turned my first event into a massive money-spinner due to DNSs :o. But I've always assumed the Brevet Card prices includes a tiny profit for AUK.
If I've understood the combination of your two paragraphs, it seems like online non-member entry may never happen, as AUK will gain nothing from it!
-
If I've understood the combination of your two paragraphs, it seems like online non-member entry may never happen, as AUK will gain nothing from it!
If non members enter but don't turn up then there is no immediate financial benefit to AUK. Then again, AUK is hardly a profit driven operation and I shudder to think what AUK's 'profit per validated brevet' is!
However, if there is online entry then (ISTM) non AUK members are more likely to enter before the event, i.e., not as an EOL, there will be more non members riding overall and who knows, they may even turn into members, all of which will contribute towards AUK's coffers. Online entry for non members will also make life easier for online organisers. All told, onliine entry for non members would seem to benefit everybody.
-
Then again, AUK is hardly a profit driven operation and I shudder to think what AUK's net 'profit per validated brevet' is!
The point is that the marginal profit-per-validation is a lot bigger than marginal profit-per-DNS. And a large element of AUK revenue is validation. I think - I never pay attention to accounts stuff, 'sall dead borin, innit?
(but otherwise I agree with your points)
-
Thinking of discussions you've had with other long distance organisations which shall remain nameless, it could be argued that restricting online entry to members, i.e., regarding online entry as a membership benefit, would provide an inducement to join AUK. ISTM that restricting online entry to members, i.e., making it harder for non-members to participate, is a good way of disincentivising non members from participating at all.
-
Thinking of discussions you've had with other long distance organisations which shall remain nameless, ...
The difference is that 'they' would try to stop us having this debate in the first place! :facepalm:
-
My own online entry forms for my calendar events do allow non-members to enter.
-
I'm going to start a contact list for online entrants and send all the route sheets out together both electronic and paper and putting them online much nearer the date of the event in future.
I did this for a 250 rider Sportive where all entries were by post and the form asked for an e-mail address.
It was well worth the extra work involved. Using bcc is essential.
-
My own online entry forms for my calendar events do allow non-members to enter.
That's excellent. It just needs a bit of simple rejigging of the wording contained on the paper entry form to be acceptable to members and non-members alike;
Presumably Ian a lot of non-members find out about (and enter) your events through your own website (which is a great bit of kit) it would be very nice if they could do the same nationally through aukweb
-
My own online entry forms for my calendar events do allow non-members to enter.
That's excellent. It just needs a bit of simple rejigging of the wording contained on the paper entry form to be acceptable to members and non-members alike;
Presumably Ian a lot of non-members find out about (and enter) your events through your own website (which is a great bit of kit) it would be very nice if they could do the same nationally through aukweb
Early days yet. I only put the forms up after this year's events. One major concern was to make sure entrants were made aware of all the AUK regs and advice (esp for the more arduous events), hence the links and text at the top.
-
Although other event management websites seem to publish Entry Lists, I've always assumed it would just be more trouble than it's worth - seems to me, for every 20 people listed, you're going to get at least one emailing you and asking for his/her name to be removed for security/privacy reasons.
Non-members, obviously it would be preferable if they were included in the online entry routines - I don't think it's a question of them being 'restricted' out, it's just extra hassle to include them in. Where a club provides a service, it has to prioritise its paid-up members. (CTC apparently don't agree.)
If Ian's new forms work so well, let's hope eventually he can extend his services to cover the whole AUK calendar!
AUK makes nothing out of non-members DNS - but by the same token puts nothing in either.
Non-member validations however are the single biggest 'profit' item that AUK can get (ie the temp member fee).
I believe some Organisers have a kind of split system at their finish, handing cards straight back to anyone who does not want their ride validated by AUK. These Orgs are (maybe unwittingly) cheating AUK of a significant source of income.
-
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members. At present there is no price differential between a non-AUK member who is a member of CTC (or BCC) and an AUK member. This does not seem right to me - there is no incentive for such an entrant to join AUK (yes, I know members get the mag, but the occasional brevet rider may not find that compelling!)
I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.
-
which strikes
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members. At present there is no price differential between a non-AUK member who is a member of CTC (or BCC) and an AUK member. This does not seem right to me - there is no incentive for such an entrant to join AUK (yes, I know members get the mag, but the occasional brevet rider may not find that compelling!)
I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.
That would seem reaonable. At the moment the levy is tagged as Insurance. Why not just call it a non member levy and have done with it?
-
This is all a bit off-topic - but important, which is why it was discussed quite recently:
If audax isn't competitive, then why bother with validation at all? (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=33415.msg641577#msg641577)
Could I suggest we move back there? Helps keep the thread titles relevant.
-
I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.
As membership secretary I can only agree, as an incentive for CTC and BCF members to also join AUK!
One possible answer might be that AUK doesn't put on events, but local clubs (usually CTC or BCF) often do. It would be hard to insist that non-AUKs should pay the non-member fee for their own event.
-
A bit off-topic, but follows on from Francis's last post - I have for some time been pondering why we don't levy the "non member" fee to all non-members.
I would prefer to see ALL non-members charged the additional £2.
I don't agree with this; AUK prides itself on its rides (unlike most competitive events) being open to all cyclists; if an AUK member's entry fee ends up with a few pence going to AUK why should insured non members have to put £2 towards it? it's not as if AUK members pay a lot for membership anyway and the membership is more than covered by the access to the website and Arrivee IMO;
If AUK needs extra dosh a modest increase in the brevet card fee (which means they get it even if the riders doesn't start or finish) seems the ticket, nobody is going to sweat that being added to the entry fee. Alternatively increase the fees slightly and offer AUK's a discount on the RRP once they've logged in to print the entry form or enter by Paypal to make the price differential less obvious?
-
I don't think a £2 fee would put anyone off doing a ride they want to do, regardless of whether it is for insurance or a non-member levy. In fact it probably isn't high enough to convince someone to join AUK, as you would need to do 10 events a year before you would save anything. I joined because I would rather be a member and supporter of the thing I am taking part in, as a CTC member there was no financial reason to do so.
-
One possible answer might be that AUK doesn't put on events, but local clubs (usually CTC or BCF) often do. It would be hard to insist that non-AUKs should pay the non-member fee for their own event.
A fair point. Should Orgs be authorised to waive non-AUK fees for local club members?
The other side of the coin is that Orgs cannot easily police/verify rider CTC/BC membership.
-
I don't think a £2 fee would put anyone off doing a ride they want to do, regardless of whether it is for insurance or a non-member levy. In fact it probably isn't high enough to convince someone to join AUK, as you would need to do 10 events a year before you would save anything. I joined because I would rather be a member and supporter of the thing I am taking part in, as a CTC member there was no financial reason to do so.
That is/was exactly my thinking