Re: Meeting Venue Preference Survey

[Randall Gellens <[e-mail]>]

At 3:53 PM -0500 8/27/10, Mary Barnes wrote:

>  I agree 100% that the question is pretty
>  useless if Maastricht is considered secondary.  A survey of the number
>  of hops (planes, trains and automobiles) that participants have to
>  take to each of those "secondary" venues would highlight the distinct
>  difference IMHO.

It's not even the number of hops but the difficulty of figuring them 
out and doing them, plus elapsed time.

>
>   I also added a comment about the fact that some of the differences in
>  responses in terms of tourism opportunities likely depends upon how
>  many sessions the individual needs to attend, how many WGs they chair
>  and how many WGs they are presenting in.  Asking folks that question
>  would really help with the analysis. My guess is that it's those of us
>   that need to be in sessions pretty much solid starting as early as
>  7:30 am and going to beyond 10pm on the majority of the days are the
>  ones that are most concerned about efficiencies and the conveniences
>  in getting the basics of food, a safe/clean place to sleep and
>  Internet.

A good observation.  It's been perplexing how many people seem to 
prefer what I find to be difficult venues that don't work well for 
the core purpose.  I think your explanation makes sense: some people 
go for only a few WGs and hence have lots of time to be a tourist.

-- 
Randall Gellens
Opinions are personal;    facts are suspect;    I speak for myself only
-------------- Randomly selected tag: ---------------
The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new
respectability to uninformed opinion.       --John Lawton