[kordless]

Using "you" here is a bit blaming, especially given the nature of RSVP is "Reply if you please". If someone wants to RSVP for an event, that means they choose the event for themselves in their internal view.

Out here, especially with social sites, RSVP is taking on another meaning entirely. Those "slots" are fictitious (just like airlines overselling seats) and assuming attendance numbers will be what something like Meetup says they are is irrational. I usually factor in a 40% attendance rate - nothing wrong with that if it's more, but it's unlikely to be 100%, unless one holds an irrational belief their event is going to net more than another.

That's not to say it doesn't make planning for the event a bit more challenging, but I seriously doubt there anything anyone can do about it other than charging for the event, which may not be desirable.

[aaronchall]

That's why I said "If".

You're right, that on aggregate, groups do factor in a poor showup rate.

And that adds to the cost of hosting. You risk buying too much perishable food versus running out of food and disappointing the latecomers.

There are options for dealing with this:

- Charge for the meetup (but then people with fewer resources can't come.)

- Track no-shows, and kick them out of the group (which is a burden for the organizers and can penalize people with really good reasons for not being able to make it.)

- But just saying something about it makes a difference in the showup rates (we tried it and it works).

So that's what I'm doing here.

[monksy]

> - Track no-shows, and kick them out of the group (which is a burden for the organizers and can penalize people with really good reasons for not being able to make it.)

Realistically this is the only option. No-shows tells people who show up that the numbers they expected to see aren't realistic and that they may be the only one that shows up the next time.

Charging for the meetup just irritates people, and sets them up for disappointment. Putting a limit on attendence and creating a waitlist works. (Although some of the people who were truely a maybe won't sign up)

[ghaff]

Or you just develop a sense for typical attendance over time.

I run various volunteer activities. Some do require people to sign up for free but we really make it clear to people to please give us notice of cancellation if it really matters to us.

You can charge a small fee. I know events that charge and offer to refund it if you show up. But for more casual evening events, this doesn't really work most of the time. People don't like to feel like they're locking themselves in which they tend to do even with a small fee.

[nulagrithom]

If you're "kicking people out of the group" and telling people not to "RSVP" unless they're 100% committed, then I feel like you're more effectively making people disinterested in your group than you are solving your attendance estimation problem.

If your group is so large that you have a waitlist, I'd be willing to bet there's a consistent statistic of RVSP vs Attendance that you could rely on. Maybe check records of your past events and see if there's much fluctuation?

[monksy]

You would be surprised on the amount of people who sign up for a meetup group and never attend a single meetup.

[ghaff]

Not the sort of meetups people are talking about here, but I'm on a bunch of lists and a number of meetup groups where I have never or only rarely attended an event.

[monksy]

I run a social group that has about 3.6k+ people on it. We have about 200-300 active people at any given time. Most of the people who drop out of the group have 0 RSVP Yeses, and 0 RSVP Nos.

We do a lot to get attendance up and to create events that people want to attend.

[aaronchall]

Our group was used to about a 66% showup rate, with a top end of probably about 80%.

Showup rates started declining, probably due to people thinking it didn't matter if they didn't make it, and not canceling their "Yes". We started discussing the problem when we had a 40% showup with a large waitlist.

We considered tracking no-shows for suspension, but before we even started that, I started mentioning the fact that we were thinking about the problem to members, and making statements on meetup pages about us looking at no-shows.

We didn't have to actually change policy, but thanks to some simple communication, we got showup rates back to their average 66%.

As a best practice, we should probably continue to mention it from time to time to ensure we don't get back to those kinds of lows.

[cf]

That seems sensible. For our meetup we assumed 50% no-show, and that 10-30% would RSVP within 24 hours of the event. We only showed the location if you RSVPed just to get better estimates, but ultimately we did the math and calibrated from there.