For this year, the emphasis seemed to be less on maximizing attendence, and more on maximizing the attractiveness of the destination.

FWIW, I think this was a mistake. I had a blast in N.O., but I'm sorry so many people had to sit this one out. Kind of demoralizing for the organizers, too.

ETA - as far as the fares go, remember that this far out they'll be higher. I looked at mid July Chicago - Seattle and NYC - Seattle just to see what airlines came up and the range from both locations was about $275 or so to $400 depending on airline. From Trudy's links, it looks like the various locations are pretty similar, with Seattle generally a notch lower.

I think Debetesse said it earlier, but I think the poll used to decide what ended up being the DC F2F was great. I can't remember specifics, but ... well, maybe I can go find it. The gist was basically, could attend, could probably attend, could not attend for each destination. So, it gave a decent approximation of possible headcount for each, which was a help.

IMO, I think the primary reason it helps to have a good number of local-istas in a chosen F2F location is because they usually have floor space or couches for those that can't afford both flight and hotel rates at the same time. It makes a huge difference and allows for a larger attendance. The more options there are for people to save money, the more people there are to hang out with. Again, that's just my opinion.

And not to sound preachy but I'd like to request that we don't set so many timelines this year. The whole We Have To Decide This Before Such And Such Date seemed to create more stress than it was worth, for everyone involved.

That's what I was thinking, Jen. Same thing for the dates, which makes it much easier on each person. They're only answering for themselves, rather than maybe feeling obligated to worry about other people in their voting.

We can also do a top choice vote, if people like.

The gist was basically, could attend, could probably attend, could not attend for each destination.

This.

If we go the way of the top choice vote, I'd like to see it amended to the top two choices and then narrowed down from there.

I think, if there are two close choices, it might be worth it to get bids in both cities. I think it will depend on how the city vote turns out.

Ooh! I found it, Jess did it.

2004 Poll: [link]

2004 Results: [link]

I think it worked well.

(I think that must've been a top two narrowing poll. Not sure how it was narrowed to that point, but a similar poll with more destinations listed would probably work fine, too, to get to the top two contenders.)

Vegas is always cheap to get to, it seems, and I know they're good with conventions. I hate the place -- they took a beautiful desert and plopped Disneyland for adults in the middle of it, and it jars my senses -- but for Buffistas, I'd go there again.

Otherwise, I'd be happy with either Seattle or SF. I do think that unless we go for a Vegas or an Orlando, where the hotel staff handle five zillion groups a year, picking a city with a high quotient of locals is important.

I did a quick search on Yahoo's low price thing, and Seattle, San Diego, LA and SF all came in at $233 from Cleveland. Portland (though I don't know now why I searched on Portland) was around $400.

it just seems like a centralized location would be most accessible and affordable to the largest number of people.

Yeah, not really the case, it's about flight routes. It's almost always cheaper for me to fly from LAX to JFK than to just about anywhere in the midwest. So the flight things is really not geographically linked.