We are having issues with members RSVPing "yes" to multiple meetups going on at the exact same time. Until cloning is perfected, no one can be in two places at once! Please make it so if someone has RSVPd to something, that time is blocked off. So if they try to RSVP to something else that conflicts with that time (or at least part of that time range if an end time is given), it will block them and tell them they are already signed up for something else at that time. I find members often RSVP to one event, and then when another event is posted at the same time they like better, they'll RSVP to that one WITHOUT removing themselves from the first one. This will force them to do that and to choose one or the other! Thanks.

I saw a lot of topics about allowing for summary reports for late cancels. But those would only be available to head organizers who run the meetup. The feature I'm proposing would be automatic and instant.
I think there could be a time frame set (e.g. 2 hours before a meetup), and if someone cancels within that time frame, they are automatically bounced to No Show. Then when the event host/organizer reviews the event later, they will know who cancelled last minute. After they've dealt with those names, they can start marking their actual No Shows (i.e. who were still Attending but failed to show up).
This would reduce the time and energy organizers would need to cross reference different lists to figure out who cancelled last minute and who No Show'd. If members know it's an automated process, it may change their behaviour.

The problem with large meetup groups is that when a new event is announced people jump on the event just to have the possibility of going should nothing better go on - and often enough they find something better going on a day or two before the event and cancel when it is too late for someone to replace them.

My suggestion is to create a member reliability waiting list. People who are more reliable would get the space that frees up before someone who is less reliable.

When you cancel an RSVP the closer to the event date the greater the risk of obtaining a poor reliability rating. This would normally work when there is a waiting list.

If you cancel more than a week prior to the event no points against your reliability rating.

If you cancel more than 96 hours (four days) prior to the event only one point against your reliability rating.

If you cancel more than 48 hours (two days) prior to to the event only two points against your reliability rating.

If you cancel more than 24 hours (one day) prior to to the event only three points against your reliability rating.

If you cancel within 24 hours before the event then four points would go against your reliability rating.

If you cancel after an event has started or you don't show then six points would go against your reliability rating.

Members would have a default number of points and for each event you attend your reliability would increase by one point.

Event schedulers should also have the ability to enable the reliability rating functionality even when there is no waiting list for those situations when a reservation is required.

It was so great to be able to scroll down old events and see people's feedback/review of the event right there on the main page, as opposed to below as a general comment in the comment thread. Also, I just discovered that when people RSVP their profile responses show up. It was SO MUCH BETTER when they could post something helpful and critical with their RSVP that would show up there instead, such as "Can drive", "have group pass to park", etc. I don't get what the value is in seeing the person's first responses to their profile questions in the RSVP box. PLEASE GO BACK...IT WAS AWESOME THE WAY IT WAS!!! :-)

Consider color coordinating Banner and Headlines on the New Coat Of Paint palette. On the New Coat of Paint color palette, the color chosen for the banner also seems to determine the color of the stripe above the navigation bar and the color of the featured meetup flags. I am proposing that the banner color also be displayed on all Headlines. Headlines are currently displayed in black and they are not very attractive. If the Banner color chosen would also include determining the color of all headlines, our web pages would not only be more aesthetically pleasing to the eye but would show more color scheme continuity from web page to web page.

Thank you.

We run our meetup a little differently. We encourage all of our members to post events/trips (schedule a new meetup). The current Meetup gets most of the way there - and allows us to set that any member can schedule a new meetup, but falls a little short as an organizer has to go and make them an event host for their own event - so they can have access to the RSVP setting for their own event.

The quick mod would be an Admin setting under the Group Settings -> Basics screen, to select whether to automatically set the person who schedules a new meetup to be set as the Event Host for that meetup; or, at least give them access to the RSVP settings.

Ideally, there would also be a setting to whether the Event Host should have access to the "Charging for this Meetup" section (which is the only very sensitive section, IMHO.)

For use when choosing a meetup that has had events in your area, the system should display locations for all or all recent events on a map. This could be done in various ways...

1) It could display each actual address as a pushpin. This would not be ideal because repeat events would be on top of each other and not represented properly, and it would potentially expose exact addresses that should be kept confidential.

2) A "heat map" overlay like what padmapper.com does with walkscores and crimescores. Areas with more events would be red. Areas with fewer events would be blue and those in the middle would be a shade in between.

3) A circle plot. Areas with more past events would be represented with large circles. Those with fewer events would be smaller circles.

In options 2 and 3, the data points would represent event counts in a particular geographical square and would be centered on the center of the square.

As an organizer I share in the sentiment that a serious disparity exists between public non-paying members and meetup subscribers / organizers.

Organizers have to pay for the right to create meetups and host events. We are the ones who pay for meetup to exist and we are the only ones who can be held accountable by meetup.

Members on the other hand are allowed to casually join as many groups as they wish, RSVP to as many events as they want, cause trouble at events or anonymously comment bomb any group with anything they might feel like saying and no show the events laughing at how they can ruin the opinion that others have of the organizer's efforts with little more effort than the click of a mouse. They are free to abuse the site and its organizers as much and as often as they wish. The worst thing that meetup can do? Send them a nasty email or kick them off - which is a very hollow threat considering how easy it is to create another ID on the system and start up the same.

So it makes sense that groups can accumulate large numbers of members and have very low turnouts. Also that there are members who belong to hundreds of groups and sign up for dozens of events at the same times. What needs to be taken seriously by them? Nothing. Other than a few minutes on the website and a few clicks of a mouse, members simply have no skin in the game.

Well it might be a really bad thing to suggest that meetup start charging money for average members to participate. Membership to meetup.com could drop and the whole idea, which is essentially one of the best things on the web IMO, would collapse. So forget the idea of charging money for members to force them to have skin in the game.

Instead, I would suggest to meetup that it develop an overall virtual credit / merit system which awards good behavior and punishes bad. This would make meetup more like a video game for members but it would start requiring effort on the part of members to gain the right to join groups and participate in events.

Such a system would shift some of the burden on members who would have to earn credits through the acknowledgements of organizers. Credits could be awarded to taken away based on whether members actually show up or not, whether they cause problems or help make events great or not or whether they make it obvious that they want to be part of the group or not.

There has to be a better way... When one side has skin in the game and the other does not, the system is fatally flawed. I for one am tired of fickle members who could not care less and are enabled by the current meetup system not to worry at all about how they treat organizers and the group's best interest.

There has to be a better way!!!!

As an Organizer I collect dues from my members to keep the group going. About half pay, and half don't, so every month I have to go through and kick folks out the group, which can be very unpleasant (but it's not fair that some pay and carry the group while others aren't pitching in).

My suggestion is to have some sort of feature where a member can be marked as "paid" or "unpaid" by the meetup system, and those marked as "unpaid" are not able to RSVP to meetups or see location details. They're still within the group, they just can't fully engage until they get their dues in. This would help organizers not have to keep track of every single person who hasn't paid and keep removing people. With this new system, once a member gets tired of not being able to join in the meetups, they're either leave the group or pay their dues....it would essentially make members self-regulate.