Event Feedback Summaries are finally finished! A big THANKYOU...

E

EventRidersAssc

Active Member
Joined
31 March 2011
Messages
30
Location
All over the country.
Visit site
to everyone who helped us by filling one in, we were really impressed by how fair minded 99% of feedback was (there was hardly any "I had a terrible day" venting at all). We received feedback on approximately 70% of B.E. events, which for the first year we thought was a great showing.
Published feedbacks are all here:
http://www.eventridersassociation.org/ukfeedbacksum.php
together with Organisers' responses, where they gave them. Please have a look. If you disagree with the feedback, you know what to do... next year, please contribute. Obviously the more feedback we receive, the more accurate it will be.
An equally huge THANKYOU to the Organisers who took it so well (some of whom were very gracious when the feedback wasn't totally complimentary, and were pleased to know exactly what they need to work on for next year!) and some of whom gave patient and detailed explanations for the way certain things were, which were hugely appreciated. We're awaiting permission to publish the last few feedbacks, some Organisers are away at the moment but we'll publish them as soon as we can.
We hope that these summaries, in conjunction with the up-to-date Pre-Event Reports, will prove to be a really useful tool for riders deciding which events to go to in 2012.
Big thanks too to the generous sponsors who gave a super monthly prize to a randomly-picked feedback-provider. We'll do everything we can to keep that going next year too.
Any comments on this whole initiative would be most welcome. Thankyou.
 
As usual the focus is very much in the south with few Scottish events. No Floors, Eglinton, Kirriemuir, Brechin, Oatridge, Burgie, Wee Burgie, Hopetoun, etc
 
smurf said:
As usual the focus is very much in the south with few Scottish events. No Floors, Eglinton, Kirriemuir, Brechin, Oatridge, Burgie, Wee Burgie, Hopetoun, etc
Click to expand...

This isn't the ERA's fault though, they can only provide reports where competitors have filled in the feedback forms. This is something that competitors can improve for themselves - if more people fill in the forms then the results will be more comprehensive. :)

I happen to know that a lot of time and work went into this and I think ERA should be congratulated for trying to collate feedback on events that riders can then use for next season. :)
 
smurf said:
As usual the focus is very much in the south with few Scottish events. No Floors, Eglinton, Kirriemuir, Brechin, Oatridge, Burgie, Wee Burgie, Hopetoun, etc
Click to expand...

Oatridge is up there.
Floors, Eglington, Kirriemuir, Brechin, and Hopetoun - we received feedback, and we are still awaiting permission to publish, or still trying to get permission to publish as some Organisers have, unfortunately, NOT liked the initiative at all.
We received no feedback at all for Burgie or Wee Burgie - not our fault.
 
Matafleur said:
This isn't the ERA's fault though, they can only provide reports where competitors have filled in the feedback forms. This is something that competitors can improve for themselves - if more people fill in the forms then the results will be more comprehensive. :)

I happen to know that a lot of time and work went into this and I think ERA should be congratulated for trying to collate feedback on events that riders can then use for next season. :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely. We did our best to encourage eventers up north to give feedback - we have a very dedicated team up there and feel they did a lot!
We are determined to have as much as possible of this system computerised for next year; it was a lot of work to collate the feedbacks, turn the many comments into a coherent document, send them out, chase for replies in most instances (big thanks to the Organisers who replied immediately, they get gold stars!), get permission, and then publish.
We've had really positive responses from the vast majority, and good comments elsewhere, so we feel it is a really worthwhile undertaking... but it's only as valid as the info we receive, after all. ;) ;)
 
Just a thought - may be totally impossible to arrange - but might it be worth having paper forms available at the event, in the secretary's tent for people to fill in and pop in a box? So many people spend forever hanging around waiting for results so might be an ideal opportunity to target them? I know that many event riders fall into the computer-phobic category and probably have very little free time when they are at home. Also, it would target the group of riders who have never heard of ERA. Just a thought :)

Would be more than happy to assist in ERA activities in the south if ever needed :)
 
Wow that must have taken some compiling! Really appreciate the ERA's efforts, its especially helpful for me as someone setting out BE for the first time next year :)
 
EventRidersAssc said:
Floors, Eglington, Kirriemuir, Brechin, and Hopetoun - we received feedback, and we are still awaiting permission to publish, or still trying to get permission to publish as some Organisers have, unfortunately, NOT liked the initiative at all.
Click to expand...

Surely this is the whole point of ERA, that you are the 'One voice' of riders. So if riders have given you feedback why do you need the event's permission to publish it? I totally agree that out of courtesy it's good to show them first and ask for their comments so that a balanced view is given. But if the event does not get off it's bum in time or simply do not like the feedback then I do not think that is a reason not to publish it.

Come on ERA show some teeth :rolleyes:
 
Smurf ... A similar point was raised on the ERA forum and below is the reply from Francis Whittington....

'The concept for the feed back form was to provide events with information that might help them to develop their event in a direction that is requested by members. The concept of the pre-event report was there to provide information for the riders to enable them to make decisions about which event they attend.This concept has been slow to get off the ground due to the delay in the information given to us by the organisers.Although this has increased towards the end of the season.
Next year we will expect to see an increase in the use of the pre-event report by organisers as a way of free advertising and promotion. this will also mention the changes that might have been made based on the feedback given this year by our members.

As I'm sure you all appreciate this is the beginning of a long journey and if it hasn't worked perfectly this season we will address these issues over the winter'
 
So events that received negative comments don't give permission for those comments to be put on the site. And it is anticipated that these same events will issue a 'pre event' update that says something like "Riders once again said our layout was terrible, our course of unimaginative portables offered poor value for money and our ground was a disgrace. We have read those comments, disagreed and changed nothing. Please all pay maximum entry fees and an extortionate start fee to experience the same low quality event in 2012" - I think not!

If the poor feedback is not published then it just devalues the whole point of collecting it. If I ran a good quality event that scored well I would be a bit fed up that those who put in little effort were not named and shamed. BE do not rate events in a way that is publicly available to riders. BEOA and EHOA and Eventing mag also sit on the fence. So why wont ERA?
 
lex2501 said:
Just a thought - may be totally impossible to arrange - but might it be worth having paper forms available at the event, in the secretary's tent for people to fill in and pop in a box? So many people spend forever hanging around waiting for results so might be an ideal opportunity to target them? I know that many event riders fall into the computer-phobic category and probably have very little free time when they are at home. Also, it would target the group of riders who have never heard of ERA. Just a thought :)

Would be more than happy to assist in ERA activities in the south if ever needed :)
Click to expand...

Thankyou, that's great, please pm me if you're serious!
We did try having paper forms but it took a lot of time up if an ERA Rep had to stand with a competitor and get them to fill it in (and many weren't keen iirc). Then the Rep had to input them all by hand, typing out comments - a lot of work at the end of a long day.
We left forms in the Secretary's at a few events and had no more take-up at those than we had online generally. We left many small flyers as a test at a few events (at Secretary's, and on lorry windscreens) and those had no particular effect either for some reason. Generally, we've had the best take-up online, rather than at those events where we made an especial effort. The only exception was one event where the ERA Rep was very well-connected and encouraged (blackmailed?!) a LOT of her friends to complete feedbacks!

smurf, Francis has said it all very eloquently really, all I'll add is that there are things we will do slightly differently next year, and one may be that we will not put ourselves in a position where we feel we need to beg for permission to publish info we have garnered from our members... but we are still very keen not to risk offending Organisers, many of whom do a lot of hard work for the sport, sometimes at great financial risk or even loss to themselves (some events never make a profit, apparently, which surprised me). They really are the bedrock of the sport.
 
Last edited:
ERA - I hear what you are saying. But .... I would argue that Riders, not organisers, are the Bedrock of the sport. Many organisers do not make money but All riders spend one hell of a lot of money to event.

You said "we are still very keen not to risk offending Organisers" Well as a rider if I get up at 5am, drive over 2 hours and spend £70 entry fee plus £20 start fee to go to a really poor quality event, I can assure you I am more than 'offended' I'm hopping bloody furious.

ERA says it's mission is "To build an association that is run by the riders for the riders and that represents all British-based competitors in order to provide a unified voice" You know the old saying that to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. Well as an ERA member I want ERA to put the interests of ERA members higher on the agenda that offending a few organisers that deliver substandard events.

I know from francis first hand how much hard work has been done by ERA. And I do appreciate it. But I also feel very strongly that riders need a body to stand up to BE, BEOA, and individual organisers.
 
I think it's BE's job, as the affiliating body, to guide organisers who deliver events which don't come up to scratch, not ERA's. I can think of an event or two this year which received a lot of BE attention, and will be hugely improved next year... or not run at all, perhaps.
If you take the time to read the feedbacks we've compiled you'll see that there are critical comments (constructive criticism, we hope), it's not all sugar-coated at all. We haven't doctored any of the marks we received, we've stayed faithful to our members. ERA's aim throughout has been to increase the flow of information - to let organisers know which areas riders want improving, which areas they've done really well at, and to let riders know which events excelled in which areas this season. If we've accomplished that this year, we hope most people will consider that's a really good start!
 
Smurf, I have to agree with you. I did discuss on this board a few years ago setting up an organisation that represented the amateur rider, but was hopeful that with Francis in the chair at ERA it would come to represent me as a grassroots amateur.

I do think tact can often get you further than hostility - but at the moment I still feel riders are considered bottom of the pile after BE, organisers and the various vested interests.
 
EventRidersAssc said:
I think it's BE's job, as the affiliating body, to guide organisers who deliver events which don't come up to scratch, not ERA's. I can think of an event or two this year which received a lot of BE attention, and will be hugely improved next year... or not run at all, perhaps.
If you take the time to read the feedbacks we've compiled you'll see that there are critical comments (constructive criticism, we hope), it's not all sugar-coated at all. We haven't doctored any of the marks we received, we've stayed faithful to our members. ERA's aim throughout has been to increase the flow of information - to let organisers know which areas riders want improving, which areas they've done really well at, and to let riders know which events excelled in which areas this season. If we've accomplished that this year, we hope most people will consider that's a really good start!
Click to expand...

Firstly Fab job, I know the hours of work that have gone in to this and I think that it is a fantastic resource that will just get better and better as more people use it and also supply reviews.

I just flicked through and I would say that there are some events that have allowed not particulary positive marks to be published...ie Moreton Morrell took a bashing for its ground in the spring and then I believe that this was vastly improved for the Autumn. They have responded to reassure people that they are aware of the issues and doing their best to sort them out.

I think that as organisers can respond to the evaluations you will find more and more events allowing publication. When events recieve bad press they often cant explain the reasons for whatever is not so good, and people vote with their feet and dont bother returning. I think that organisers will see this as a way to reassure people that they are aware of ground/SJ warm up/ mean dressage steward/ whatever issues and will sort them out for next year.

If you were to publish all results without permission organisers may see this as more of a negative resource and a bit of a witch hunt.
 
I do a lot of freelance journalism and most of the time if I report anything negative about an event it never makes it into print because the editors won't offend an event organiser.

In some areas of the country, like Scotland, events are few and far between so even the poor quality ones are allowed to run each year. It may be BE's job to "guide organisers who deliver events which don't come up to scratch" but the last thing BE want is more events in remote locations to stop running. So they allow sub-standard events to carry on. It would be much healthier for the sports to have an unbiased body who offered riders feedback on ALL events rather than the numerous posts you see on this forum asking what XYZ event is like.

Spottedcat - as an amateur rider I am very disillusioned with eventing in Scotland.
 
...the other thing is that as more and more events see how useful feedback can be and allow results to be published, the ones that dont allow publication will speak for themselves.

Smurf I completely agree that its is awful that poorly organised and designed events are allowed to run....but dont we pay BE extortionate affiliation fees to enable them to regulate events? Dont even get me started on how I don't believe that BE are supporting grassroot riders in our sport!! but I think that this is a different issue.
 
I think you have to be very carfeul about suggesting events shouldn't be allowed to run if they are 'sub standard' - events supply different needs and 'choice' allow people to 'decide' which events they want to support.

Some events support a 'local' population which may not be of the 'highest' standard but are very popular -for instance, in the north west we 'lost' a very popular event - 'Osbaldeston' - which at least in part stopped running because of criticism by 'the powers that be'.

The more events there are, the more choice there is, the more market forces should prevail.
 
I am hopeful that ERA will come to represent me a bit more as it develops. Goodness knows Francis has done an amazing job if you compare it to years gone by - but I also agree that there is perhaps a little bit too much pandering to people in BE and organisers.

I can't see Aldon (2) on the list?
 
VRIN - if a perfect market existed I would completely agree. But it does not. In the centre of England you may well have 10 events within a one hour radius. In parts of Scotland you have a small handful within a 2.5 hour radius. So even crap events get support as we do not have any option. The choice is go to a crap one or stay at home and not run your horse in over a month.

I'm not saying that sub standard events should not be allowed to run, I'm saying that their feedback should be published so that they get a public kick up the ass to become a standard event. I don't want to lose anymore events norrth of the border.
 
smurf said:
I do a lot of freelance journalism and most of the time if I report anything negative about an event it never makes it into print because the editors won't offend an event organiser.

In some areas of the country, like Scotland, events are few and far between so even the poor quality ones are allowed to run each year. It may be BE's job to "guide organisers who deliver events which don't come up to scratch" but the last thing BE want is more events in remote locations to stop running. So they allow sub-standard events to carry on. It would be much healthier for the sports to have an unbiased body who offered riders feedback on ALL events rather than the numerous posts you see on this forum asking what XYZ event is like.

Spottedcat - as an amateur rider I am very disillusioned with eventing in Scotland.
Click to expand...

But we HAVE published negative comments about events - with the Organisers' permissions!
We do offer riders feedback on all events (that riders have bothered to respond about - it's not our fault if they chose not to respond about some events, yet) and we are not biased in favour of Organisers (who, after all, have their own organisation etc), BUT one can accomplish a lot more with tact in this sort of instance, than with offensive directness or downright rudeness. (btw, one organiser considered that our sending him feedback about his event (mostly very positive, as a matter of fact) was VERY rude. we've had to tread very carefully with certain people, while others have been totally open and welcoming... but that's life! Being tactful does not mean we have betrayed our members, quite the reverse, we hope. We're more about building bridges than burning them...

I'm sorry that you are disillusioned with eventing in Scotland, but surely that is something to take up with BE (at the AGM? on the Forum?). As said above, it is BE which has the high affiliation fee etc. ERA just cannot be expected to try to redress the great inequality in event locations and quality throughout the country.

SC, Aldon (2)'s Feedback Summary has been sent, and we're awaiting a response. Having given all other organisers a bit of time to respond, we felt we had to play fair and do the same there.
 
I am guessing if they are happy to run as a 'crap' event a public 'kick up' the bum won't necessarily have the effect you might desire..

Organisers must be aware of the quality of their event and in the cases you describe they have clearly demonstrated their 'ability' to ignore any demands for improvement.

I agree with you about lack of events in the north, whilst we are slightly better than you we still need more.

One point, as an aside, we often read - indeed I recall an article in one of the eventing magazines about the cost of running one -about how events don't make profits. Whilst i am sure many do not, I would be interested to know if any of these where the ones where the 'organisers' are also the builders - who actually make a living from building the course. I am not suggesting that they should do it for nothing but I am guessing that part of their motivation in running the event is to help 'make a living' in which case it puts a slightly different take on 'not making a profit'.
 
Eventridersassociation, you do seem to be a little too concerned with the opinion of the organisers as opposed to that of the actual competitors, which is a little odd when one considers exactly whom you are suppose to represent. For example, asking permission to publish negative feedback. If this is somes personal opinon you do not need permission to publish on your website as part of a report. Obviously some organisers accept that not everyone has a good day and do not mind a few negative comments amngst other positive ones but a great many will not allow negative feedback. This sure is the most vital part of the information collected though surely as it is this which enables events to know what to work on in order to improve. Then the following year, comments can be compared to see whether this information has been used in the constructive manner one would hope.
The person who does journalism and mentions that any mention of negative aspects at an event get cut out is quite right. A similar point was made by HRH the Princess Royal at a conference recently. Also journalists who do not 'play ball' are struck off mailing lists and denied accreditation by the closed shop of British Eventing so it is doubly important that ERA retains an unbiased integrity.
Lastly, I do not usually comment on grammar and spelling in other peoples posts, we all make mistakes after all. But I must say that as a professional organisation you posts on here and often on the website leave much to desired and cannot possibly be creating the image ERA should be hoping to achieve.
 
VRIN, i see your point, and obviously there is a difference between making a profit, breaking even (having taken a salary for work done, time taken etc) and making a loss. This is one reason why we are pushing for transparency.

badattitude, where did I say that we asked for permission to publish negative feedback? We ask for, and await permission to, publish ALL feedback, at present. We have published negative feedback, as stated above.
One problem we had this year was that for some events we received very limited feedback. What should we do if we received only one feedback, among, say, 400 competitors, and the one we received was very negative? If we publish, it is biased - since 399 people didn't comment at all! If we don't, we aren't being true to the member who gave the feedback.
Please point out the grammar and spelling mistakes I have made in any posts on HHO.
I do not write all the content on the ERA website (it is too big a job for one person, and we are all volunteers!) but your point is noted, and has been raised previously, I assure you.
 
What should we do if we received only one feedback, among, say, 400 competitors, and the one we received was very negative? If we publish, it is biased - since 399 people didn't comment at all! If we don't, we aren't being true to the member who gave the feedback.
^^^^^ This^^^^^

Also I suspect that people that are more likely to feedback are those who either has a brilliant day or those who had an awful day thus skewing the results both ways.
 
Last edited:
avthechav said:
What should we do if we received only one feedback, among, say, 400 competitors, and the one we received was very negative? If we publish, it is biased - since 399 people didn't comment at all! If we don't, we aren't being true to the member who gave the feedback.
^^^^^ This^^^^^

Also I suspect that people that are more likely to feedback are those who either has a brilliant day or those who had an awful day thus skewing the results both ways.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I have done about 1/3-1/2 the summaries and can only remember one or two feedbacks where someone had obviously had a hellish day and wanted to vent. Fortunately there were other feedbacks to balance them out for those events, but for others, there have not been. We've done our best to read between the lines and come up with a fair overall summary.
 
EventRidersAssc said:
We do offer riders feedback on all events (that riders have bothered to respond about - it's not our fault if they chose not to respond about some events, yet) and we are not biased in favour of Organisers .
Click to expand...

This is a contradiction to your previous post. What you mean is ... We do offer riders feedback on all events (that riders have bothered to respond about) ... As long as the organisers are not offended by it and have given permission.

So where riders HAVE bothered but organisers HAVE NOT bothered to give permission then no feedback has been given. So why would we riders bother to provide feedback in future when it is effectively censored by the organisers? I may as well send feedback into Eventing mag for their guide to the season, have it censored by the editor and get paid for it!:eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top