2015 Forms FYI

[Alan Etheredge]

Might as well get this aired-out now since Nancy's about to release the first batch of 2015 forms (License renewal, etc. - see the Announcements subforum about that) ....

We/I will NOT be offering any type-fill PDF forms for 2015; all PDF forms must be printed and neatly filled-out by hand. You can still scan your hand-filled forms and submit them as email attachments (as well as the usual fax or snail-mail submittal).

We gave it a go for ’14 but the hoped-for payback wasn’t realized:

1) In the aggregate a very small percent of all registration/entries was done using the type-fill forms;
2) There was no measureable increase in the number of pre-entries in ’14 as a result of offering the type-fill version of forms;
3) There were a number of cases where racer use of non-genuine Adobe applications to fill the forms (contrary to the Instructions) resulted in incorrect formula execution (busted automated fee calculations) and/or confusing formatting errors on submitted forms;
4) There was no gain in efficiency at the CMRA office from using the type-to-fill forms: there was a similar incidence of need to manually follow-up on those forms as with the hand-fill forms due to errors or omissions.

If so inclined you can 'vent' in this thread, please do not take my non-response as a personal slight ;-).

Offers by others to make type-fill forms will be politely declined by non-response: reasons 3) and 4) above are independent of the effort required to make the forms or who makes 'em.

Thanks for your understanding.

[Eric Falt]

Thanks Alan...we all appreciate your help and guidance

[Ted Phillips]

Alan, your effort is sincerely appreciated. I could breeze through the type-fill forms in seconds, but if there's no labor savings, and worse, if errors increase then I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. I know they are a colossal pain to create even without any type-fill features.

something something online registration something

[Alan Etheredge]

.... if errors increase then I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment....

Don't want to mislead, Ted - I don't suggest there was an overall increase in errors/omissions requiring follow-up, just no measurable decrease which was a hoped-for benefit not realized.

I'd willingly go through the hassle of making 'em if we realized some real gains, but not for a 'break-even' used by a small number of members.

[Ted Phillips]

Don't want to mislead, Ted - I don't suggest there was an overall increase in errors/omissions requiring follow-up, just no measurable decrease which was a hoped-for benefit not realized.

Bud Johnson mislead me once. I ended up in a winner's circle drinking milk out of Chuck Norris' head.

[Michael De Simone]

something something online registration something

:D


Thanks Alan. I liked them and I thought the effort was well worth it (and I was involved with the beta testing so it was my time too) it's unfortunate that the work didn't offer the expected results on the back end.

[Jim Dugger]

I loved them

[David Branyon]

Loved'em but understand. Thanks for the real effort at getting them done and getting the feedback on their improvement or lack thereof to the overall process. Not a failure since we learned something.