I have been commenting—and, yes, even criticising—a fair number of treasure hunt questions and formats of several hunts for a while now. This lately, I am beginning to feel that my comments and criticisms are not always welcomed.
On the other hand, I have received quite a number of emails and text messages—not to mention encouragements over the phone—for me to continue giving my comments. Apparently, some people are "hooked" on my comments and analysis, although I suspect some of them are not exactly newbies, seeking to learn new stuff. One such fan of mine, apparently still not done with the One Night Stand thread yet, wanted more, more, more (hunt analysis—not one night stand)!
Well, this thread is neither about criticising nor analysing hunt questions. It's just something that my good friend and mentor, 2 Romans & 1 Impostor (2R1I), said in the Bollywood thread about treasure hunters needing to adapt to the styles of the Clerks-of-Course (CoC)—and their inaccuracies—except for the one "from the North".
So perhaps it is time to discuss what do we hunters expect from CoCs in general? Obviously we do have our expectations, don't we? I find it interesting that 2R1I said that some CoCs "don't follow this best practice or can't be bothered".
Is that really so?
There are essentially three groups of CoCs. The first group comprises those who have full time jobs—they clerk hunts as a hobby, i.e. not exactly for the money, although the monetery rewards usually come as a consequence of their roles as the CoCs. They have the flexibility to clerk the hunts as and when they like to, and they are hardly ever at the mercy of their clients. These are the people who might end up clerking hunts for very little money or even for free.
The second group comprises those who clerk hunts to earn a living. The treasure hunting business is their bread and butter. They are usually those who are involved in the event-organizing business. Although some of their revenues are generated from non-hunt activities, they would normally try to keep their options open to do hunts as well. In other words, if they are no longer popular amongst the treasure hunters, it could hurt their pockets.
The third group comprises those who have full-time jobs, but a major portion of their incomes are generated through clerking hunts on a frequent basis. They normally do closed hunts, although they might also clerk open hunts occasionally.
It has been suggested to me that those from the first group above are the ones who don't really care about what the hunters think of their hunts. Then those from the third group are concerned with what the hunters think of their hunts—but not overly so, to the extent that they would concede to the hunters all the time. Finally, those from the second group are those who would be at the mercy of their clients and hunters alike. Well, I beg to differ.
I am one of those from within the first group of CoCs, and I am most certainly not at the mercy of my "clients"—I can turn down an offer (to clerk) anytime I want; and I can organize a hunt even for free. But I am very, very concerned with what the hunters think of my hunts. A couple of months ago, when I commented on the AMC Hunt in this blog, the CoC, Kok Seng responded in kind and actually apologized for a mistake in one of the questions. I happen to know that he's also not a full-time CoC, yet he did not give me the impression that he couldn't be bothered with what the hunters had to say.
More recently, during the KK City Hunt last February, I was able to lodge a complaint—in good spirit—to my friend, Lim Soo Khian of Time Out Solutions. The essense of my so-called complaint was that there were too many games in the KK City Hunt, and we hunters prefer more questions and lesser games. Soo Khian was kind enough to explain that actually the majority of the hunters preferred more games! And I had to reluctantly agree with him. After all, the KK City Hunt has grown in popularity from a meagre 67 teams in 2006, to 94 teams in 2007, to 120 teams in 2008. He said if he had it his way, he would rather do a pure hunt with no games at all. But alas, the KK City Hunt was geared for the preference of the majority.
Then last week, after the TrialBlazers Hunt, I noticed that the CoC, Captain Jack Swallow, was also going around to seek feedbacks from the hunters, with the aim of improving himself for future hunts. He also published a statement in Michael Pang's blog to apologize for some shortcomings during the hunts.
The conclusion that I can draw from the above is that most CoCs, if not all, are concerned with what the hunters think of their performance. I think the real question is whether they are able to do anything about it? I don't believe it's a case of "can't be bothered".
On the other hand, I have received quite a number of emails and text messages—not to mention encouragements over the phone—for me to continue giving my comments. Apparently, some people are "hooked" on my comments and analysis, although I suspect some of them are not exactly newbies, seeking to learn new stuff. One such fan of mine, apparently still not done with the One Night Stand thread yet, wanted more, more, more (hunt analysis—not one night stand)!
Well, this thread is neither about criticising nor analysing hunt questions. It's just something that my good friend and mentor, 2 Romans & 1 Impostor (2R1I), said in the Bollywood thread about treasure hunters needing to adapt to the styles of the Clerks-of-Course (CoC)—and their inaccuracies—except for the one "from the North".
So perhaps it is time to discuss what do we hunters expect from CoCs in general? Obviously we do have our expectations, don't we? I find it interesting that 2R1I said that some CoCs "don't follow this best practice or can't be bothered".
Is that really so?
There are essentially three groups of CoCs. The first group comprises those who have full time jobs—they clerk hunts as a hobby, i.e. not exactly for the money, although the monetery rewards usually come as a consequence of their roles as the CoCs. They have the flexibility to clerk the hunts as and when they like to, and they are hardly ever at the mercy of their clients. These are the people who might end up clerking hunts for very little money or even for free.
The second group comprises those who clerk hunts to earn a living. The treasure hunting business is their bread and butter. They are usually those who are involved in the event-organizing business. Although some of their revenues are generated from non-hunt activities, they would normally try to keep their options open to do hunts as well. In other words, if they are no longer popular amongst the treasure hunters, it could hurt their pockets.
The third group comprises those who have full-time jobs, but a major portion of their incomes are generated through clerking hunts on a frequent basis. They normally do closed hunts, although they might also clerk open hunts occasionally.
It has been suggested to me that those from the first group above are the ones who don't really care about what the hunters think of their hunts. Then those from the third group are concerned with what the hunters think of their hunts—but not overly so, to the extent that they would concede to the hunters all the time. Finally, those from the second group are those who would be at the mercy of their clients and hunters alike. Well, I beg to differ.
I am one of those from within the first group of CoCs, and I am most certainly not at the mercy of my "clients"—I can turn down an offer (to clerk) anytime I want; and I can organize a hunt even for free. But I am very, very concerned with what the hunters think of my hunts. A couple of months ago, when I commented on the AMC Hunt in this blog, the CoC, Kok Seng responded in kind and actually apologized for a mistake in one of the questions. I happen to know that he's also not a full-time CoC, yet he did not give me the impression that he couldn't be bothered with what the hunters had to say.
More recently, during the KK City Hunt last February, I was able to lodge a complaint—in good spirit—to my friend, Lim Soo Khian of Time Out Solutions. The essense of my so-called complaint was that there were too many games in the KK City Hunt, and we hunters prefer more questions and lesser games. Soo Khian was kind enough to explain that actually the majority of the hunters preferred more games! And I had to reluctantly agree with him. After all, the KK City Hunt has grown in popularity from a meagre 67 teams in 2006, to 94 teams in 2007, to 120 teams in 2008. He said if he had it his way, he would rather do a pure hunt with no games at all. But alas, the KK City Hunt was geared for the preference of the majority.
Then last week, after the TrialBlazers Hunt, I noticed that the CoC, Captain Jack Swallow, was also going around to seek feedbacks from the hunters, with the aim of improving himself for future hunts. He also published a statement in Michael Pang's blog to apologize for some shortcomings during the hunts.
The conclusion that I can draw from the above is that most CoCs, if not all, are concerned with what the hunters think of their performance. I think the real question is whether they are able to do anything about it? I don't believe it's a case of "can't be bothered".
Where it's about services, e.g. arrangements of venue, food etc., I'm sure that it's a matter of time before the CoCs become experts. But when it comes to the hunt itself, i.e. the questions, tulips, powerpoint presentations etc., that is a different matter altogether. Ignoring the "external factors" for the moment, one needs to be imaginative and creative in setting treasure hunt questions.
To a certain extent, imagination and creativity can be learned, but some people are born with a natural talent—they are able to come up with out-of-this-world ideas in hunt questions. Then of course, come the so-called "external factors", i.e. the availability of sufficient time to set the questions, language proficiency, technical know-hows, the working attitude of the CoCs etc.
I have several staff in the office. They can't locate a spelling mistake in one of those words in a paragraph no matter how many times they read that paragraph. The mental attitude is just not tuned for that. They just don't have the patience to read word for word, and even if they did, they won't be able to spot the mistake anyway. I think some CoCs are like that too. It is not so much about not caring about the hunters, but I believe they themselves are blind to those minor things like a missing "s", or that "di pukul" should be joined whereas "dibawah" should be separated, or it should have been in past tense and not present tense etc. Things like that are not relevant to them!
That's why I think some CoCs can't "improve" beyond a certain level. And it is in such cases that I totally agree with 2R1I—that we hunters will simply have to adapt to those CoCs' "styles".
Having said that, however, I believe there will come a time when more CoCs will arrive at the hunting scene, and steep competition will follow. The "more accurate" CoCs will eventually prevail; and the "less accurate" CoCs will gradually phase out. That is just the hard reality in life, I guess.
So, for example, when there are many choices, hunters will probably choose to join the hunts where the answers are "tighter"; clear and easy-to-understand tulips as opposed to no tulips at all; comfortable venues for the presentations; decent meals after the hunt etc.
9 comments:
I think all types of CoC will find their own niche. A few will be the BMWs of treasure hunt, a few the Protons and 1 or 2 classic cars only for serious hobby. You will be surprise that the not so accurate CoCs, those who play to the gallery will get more jobs and bigger crowd at their hunt. There are more people out there who just want to do something fun over the weekend compare to "purist" hunters.
Yes, delurk, I have noticed that too. In fact, I am now convinced that the majority of hunters are those who're out to have some fun during the weekends. That's why they prefer more games, just like what Soo Khian has said.
I'm not disputing that at all. The point I'm trying to make is that there will come a time when you will have enough CoCs competiting against each other; and when you have a situation where all else are equal, then the hunters will choose the hunts with the least inaccuracies. I'd imagine that if I am a not-so-serious hunter seeking to have some fun on a weekend, and there are 2 hunts available on that weekend, and both have lots of games, both giving "mild" questions, then I think there is no doubt that I will choose the one with more accurate questions.
There aren't many "purists" out there. Most not-so-regular hunters (the masses) are in favour of games, because of the myth that they don't stand a chance against the top predators in pure hunts. However, no matter the ingenuity of the games organized, you'll tend to find familiar names at the top at the end of the day.
My opinion is that for the not-so-regular hunters to reap the rewards, they just have to practice and practice and practice (and perserve and perserve and perserve). Tiger and Federer (dominant in their own sport respectively) are key examples of sportsmen who have put in tonnes of effort and are now reaping their deserving rewards.
A good starting point? The now "not-so-popular" theStar, Section 2 - Cryptic Crossword. Nothing better, short of joining hunts, to practice your anagrams, initials, containers, etc and familiarize yourselves with the popular and deceptive keywords used out there.
Most companies (or should I say the organizing committee of companies) know very little about treasure hunts, from personal encounters. What attracts them to award a job are 3 main factors, Cost, Portfolio and Reputation.
Should any ABC company meet the above 3 pre-requisites positively, jobs will tend to fall in their laps. That brings back my point about hunters needing to adapt to all types of CoCs, rather than hoping for those having "better grammar" to prevail in the tenders!
2R1I,
There is a limit to everything. I suppose your comment is more applicable for closed hunts. But when it comes to open hunts, if your questions are too awful, whether in terms of logic or grammatical sense, the organisers will eventually have to listen to what the hunters want.
For some years the KK City Hunt was clerked by a "local CoC". I think that happened for 2 consecutive years. By that second year, many hunters were so unhappy with the nonsense and decided to write to the hotline in the local papers. Those hunters threatened to boycott the hunt. The result was that TOS was hired to clerk the KK City Hunt the following year; and they've been doing that since. The "local CoC" faded into oblivion. Well, OK, perhaps he's watching from the sideline to learn from the professionals?
But, yes, I agree the Cost, Portfolio and Reputation are the determinants. Then again, that's exactly what I mean, if you have a bad reputation—be it because of bad grammar or whatever—you are not likely to get the job!
Don't want to start another long debate (this will be my last comment for this posting, honest), but I shall respectfully disagree.
For the organizing company, the motor hunt (or walk hunt) portion is all but just "one of the activities" in an overall Event. One can make up for substandard grammar, with entertaining pre-hunt and/or post-hunt activities. Like I said, most companies know very little about treasure hunts and cannot tell the good from the not-so-good.
If you will just open your eyes a little bit wider, you'll notice that there are already some CoCs out there throwing in a post hunt stage-entertainment included as part of their fees. This added dimension is indeed eye-catching to prospective clients as it saves them from spending another fortune to entertain the people during the intermissions.
That is how competitive this thriving industry has gotten over the last decade.
Awww imposing a self gag-order, my friend?... hehehe. I'm sure we're doing a great job in keeping my readers' interest in this blog going!
Fine, the organisers don't know much about quality hunt questions. But what happens when they don't get the crowd? Won't they have no choice but to cancel the hunt? In the end ultimately it's the target audience that will decide.
For as long as the crowd is there, then, yes, the CoC lives. But as I said everything has a limit. Once you reach a point where the hunters start boycotting the hunt, then the organisers will have no choice!
Oh by the way, folks, 2R1I and I have also continued communicating through text messages shortly ago. No—we didn't debate over text messages. Basically, he said he just realised that the typed the words "perserve" when he meant to type "persevere". In fact, I realised it too. That and the word "practice", when it should have been "practise". But I had deliberately left it open for comments from other readers. I was teasing 2R1I—he must have been itching to correct the spelling mistakes, but for his self gag-order!... hahaha!
1. Corny, if you were a not-so-serious hunter, you wouldn't know which COC is more accurate when setting questions.
2. If treasure hunting is only being participated by regular hunters, i don't think you will have many hunts in the future. Organizations have this not just to cater to those who is/would be in the TOS hall of fame. Otherwise, it would probably die a natural death.
3. There are no "real rules" on hunting. Rules are not clearly spelt out to separate the right from the wrong.
4. I don't think hunters would boycott future hunts just because there are some grammatical error. Maybe a purist like yourself would, but not the masses.
5. I think the masses would shy away from hunts if they always go home empty handed. That is why you will see popular hunts sometimes include lucky draws or plenty of consolation prizes.
6. I think the regulars are hunting merely for the prizes. To them, it is no longer an enriching experience to participate but not win.
7. It is quite true that not so regulars want games so that they stand a better chance at winning something. It is also very true that regulars want pure hunt questions so that they can protect their turf and secure a better chance at winning. There must be a balance.
Thanks for your comments, Mr Anonymous.
I don't know what the hell am I doing blogging at this hour! But, you know how it is with addiction...
1. For the first timers, they will probably join any hunt; for they hardly know where to start anyway. For those who have had some hunts, they would probably know a bit. Some would ask around. After I had several hunts, I actually asked the regulars about the quality of a CoC before I decided to join. But of course not everyone is like me!... hehehe
2. I agree with you. In the end, it's still the majority who will rule.
3. Yes, I agree with you on this point too—no clear-cut rules to separate the right from the wrong. Never mind about what's right or wrong, but would join another TrialBlazers Hunt if you have another hunt by another CoC on the same day?
4. Oh of course it's not likely that hunters are going to boycott hunts because of grammatical inaccuracies. Perhaps I am at fault here. I have given too much emphasis on grammatical aspect. But inaccuracies can be in many forms. One might be baffled by the accuracy or logic in "Bon appetite, Sarkozy!" as referring to "LE FRANCAIS", for example. Even a not-so-regular hunter has his limit.
5. This is one comment I can't disagree. In fact, I raised this issue in Mike's blog. If out of so many teams, only 3 to 5 teams are gonna get something, the masses will shrink in no time!
6. I think everyone, regulars and non-regulars hunt to win. I have yet to see a team which hunt to lose. But I'm inclined to believe that many regulars want to win for the recognition, rather than merely for the dollars and cents. The money is sweet, of course; but we have had, for example a charity hunt here in KK the year before last where the first prize was only worth RM500 whereas the registration fee was RM280. Yet the champion, having won the recognition of the hunt, gave away their RM500 to the charity.
More recently still, the champions of last year's Sutera Hunt asked me who's going to clerk the hunt this year. They said that if I am clerking the hunt, they will still try to come even though they're aware that the prizes have been reduced substantially to the extent that they're gonna lose even if they won the top prize!
7. Yes, as I have said in the above post, when Soo Khian explained that the masses prefer more games, I have to reluctantly agree with him. Most regulars like pure hunts, but the majority still rule. It's just business I guess, the organisers still want the crowd one way or another. So, yes, I agree, there must be a balance.
Post a Comment