kittyposse

Been there, done that: Herford, Germany, population 65,000 Waymarks until 11 April 2013: NONE Waymarks to date: 19 for 13 different objects (some of them cross-posted) And that's only the beginning - about 500 photos for more wmks are waiting on my hard disk...

I'm very much in line with fi67: I like to have my stats seperate, and that's the main reason for me not to visit my own waymarks. Another reason is laziness: When I post a new waymark, this implies I "visited" it. I've been there and took photos and gathered information, and all that is already documented in the waymark description. I wouldn't know what to add to that in an additional visit log. That would only mean extra time and extra effort, without extra benefit. So why bother? But this is only my very personal opinion and as others said before, there are no rules. You can do as you please and whichever you choose, you won't do anything wrong.

Yes, I understand that. I think that (and of course the reply by fi67) is a well-written conclusion.

Absolutely agreed. That's why I suggested comments should be voluntary, not abolished. There would still be valuable feedback, but a smaller number of nonsense entries only made because the box can't be left blank. This way the remaining ones would be all the more valuable.

DieCacherGirls, During the forum discussion it WAS pointed out that not everyone approves of "limited availability categories", so those comments in peer review shouldn't have been a surprise. It's true that there were vague hints in that direction, but I don't recall it was ever pointed out to be a serious problem. And BTW: I wasn't surprised by the comments. What did surprise me was that they were accompanied by a Nay rather than Abstain. But that was when I, just like the creators of the category, still misunderstood the general concept, and of course I'm wiser now.

Comments are not required. Peer Review instructions state you must give a reason for a Nay vote, but you do not have to write a single word. I'm baffled. How could I give a reason without writing a single word? . Now this is getting ridiculous. I find it difficult to accept a fullstop as a reason. And anyway, if this is only kidding, then why insist on "giving a reason" in the first place?

Comments are not required. Peer Review instructions state you must give a reason for a Nay vote, but you do not have to write a single word. I'm baffled. How could I give a reason without writing a single word?

I share some of DieCacherGirls' discontent with the current peer review concept, but my course of action would be right in the opposite direction and instead of putting up more restrictions and complicating the process, I'd suggest to further facilitate it and ask only one single question in peer review: Would you, personally, like to see this new category added to the list? (yes/no) And that's it, plain and simple. Criteria such as globality, prevalence, redundancy, "wow" factor etc. may still be mentioned as suggestions to think about when voting, but not as guidelines or as a checklist to go through. They'd be merely suggestions that one may just as well ignore. I'd further suggest to do away with the need to add comments to "nay" votes. As it is, many of these comments aren't very substantial and are of little or no value anyway, and then I believe nobody should be forced to justify their vote, regardless whether it be "nay" or "yea". Of course those who'd like to add a comment should still be able to do so, but this should be voluntary for both "nay" and "yea". In the end, it is not important why voters vote the way they do. Important is only the result. If 2/3 of the voters vote "yea" - for whatever reasons - then the new category can be expected to be a success (as ist is welcomed by the vast majority of the community) and it deserves to pass. If, on the other hand, more than 1/3 of the voters say "nay" - again, for whatever reasons - then there is reason to believe the new category would be of limited interest to a substantial part of the community, and it deserves to fail. Of course, this way peer review would still be the box of chocolates ("you never know what youre gonna get") it ever was, maybe even more, but at least this would be clear from the very start and there wouldn't be any false expectations like "If I only did my homework, my category will be likely to pass". But if fi67 is right and nothing's gonna change anyway, then why bother? I guess I'd better save my time and go out and find some new waymarks instead.

I double-failed: Altenbeken has a population of only 9.204 and I only managed to do six waymarks (given they'll all be approved). Could've been two more, but the photos turned out to be unsatisfactory. But then, I only had 30 minutes time when changing trains, so that makes one every five minutes...

Ok, then it was me who misunderstood the concept of peer review. I was under the impression that it should be an objective evaluation of the category, regardless of personal likes or dislikes. IIRC, I read something like "Please keep in mind, we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category here" somewhere. As I understand now, peer review is rather like a popularity poll that will only let those categories pass that get a "like it" from the vast majority of waymarkers, while less popular topics are a stillborn child right from the start, no matter how well they might be worked out. Of course this is frustrating for those who fruitlessly put a lot of effort into their proposal, but actually I think it's not at all a bad thing. With way beyond 1.000 categories, the systems gets increasingly complex and there sure is some common sense in restricting any new additions to the most popular ones. But I'm getting off topic, these are general thoughts that have little to do with the particular category discussed here.

Oh! Didn't know 1028 are not enough.

Yes, very interesting, but I agree with fi67: Probably too difficult to define and there is an overlap with other categories, in which these buildings could be waymarked. Not sure we need an extra category for them. But then: How about a category for Waldorf Schools? After reading your first sentence, I thought that was what you were after and was intrigued by the idea. They are interesting both for their philosophy and their architecture, and they're global. Plus they'd be fairly easy to define. I think they'd make a great category.

I am disappointed with the way peer review goes. Not so much because of the number of "nay" votes, but because of the reasons given for them. Comments show that the vast majority of those voting "no" either - haven't read the category description at all - haven't quite understood the general concept of a "limited availability" category - or base their vote on personal dislikes of the subject rather than the quality of the category. As I'm quite new here, I wonder is this the usual thing with peer review? I've got several ideas for new categories myself, but must confess I feel very discouraged to propose any of them.

Hmm... that description would exclude the "machines" on pics #2 and #4 in your opening post, because they either have no moving parts or don't consume energy. Was that done on purpose?

If they have "expert" or "pro" status, this is indicated together with the name. So if you see only the name, they are not "expert" or "pro".

You could, by posting a photo of the sky above. That's in the panorama, too.

I'm ok with that description. Circuit seems to be clear: A circular course where start and finish fall into one. Indeed, the mention of "mile" is odd with all other distances measured in km. But I like the idea of a clear definition of a minimum distance. I'd make it 1 km or 2 km, and I don't think it matters which. With circular runs, it will most always be less than one kilometer, and with point-to-point runs it will be much larger anyway. Don't think there's much in between. For 2 reasons, I'd like to keep "What makes this running event unique?" as a variable. 1) It reminds the waymarker to include this aspect, much more than asking to put it in the long description would. 2) It helps to find this information when looking at the waymark. You'll know where to find it and don't have to read through the bulk of the text. After all, you can still include it in the long description and repeat the keywords in the variable. Good luck with this, I'd love to see this as a category soon.

Looks good to me.

I'm quite enthusiastic about this idea for a category! How about "Technical Monuments" as a name? I agree with the exclusion of vehicles, these already have their own categories. However, I'd prefer to limit it to items that are obviously put up for public display and receive some minimum of maintenance, to distinguish them from scrap lying about because nobody cares. That washer in the woods sure is a great sight, but I'd draw a line there...

Looks quite good, but still, two thoughts: 1) Why limit it to road runs for distances shorter than marathon? The biggest running event in my area is the "Hermannslauf", an annual 31.1 km run from the Hermannsdenkmal monument near Detmold to Sparrenburg castle in Bielefeld. It has 7.000 participants each year and most of them are "classical" marathon or long distance runners, not so much cross country. BUT only part of the route is on what you would call a "road". It is mostly on a broad hiking trail through the forest, partly it is paved, partly it is not. The general character however is marathon or half marathon, and it would be a pity to have this excluded, only because it is mostly not on a "road". 2) I remember from the discussion that there was a strong emphasis on the "mass participation" aspect, but I find little of that in the description. Will there be a defined limit to the minimum number of participants (e.g. 1.000) an event must have in order to qualify? Of course one could argue about the exact number, but I feel there should be some definition for what is regarded as "mass participation". And finally, a more technical issue: For non-circular runs, will there be only ONE waymark accepted (for either the start OR the finish), or would TWO waymarks (for both the start PLUS the finish) be ok?

Although I wasn't addressed, I feel an urge to reply for the same goes for me: I voted nay without posting my objections (which are about the description rather than the genaral idea) here in the forums when it was time. Reason is simply because I wasn't in the forums back last year when this topic was hot and somehow I missed out on the February update. Should have paid better attention, sorry for that.