bootron

Various sorts for the directory, including one by popularity are planned. We are likely going to make a popularity sort the default, instead of the # of waymarks as it presently is.

The popularity filter is going to go under surgery soon, as there are some issues with it that need to be addressed. I'm heading out now, so I don't have time to explain, but thought that it might be at least helpful to know that we are aware that the pop filter isn't really all that helpful at this point and have plans to fix it.

Yes but surely there must be a qualitative difference in Waymarking a McDs, at the bottom level, and, for example, Waymarking an Earthcache where the "owner" has to research and provide some validated educational information, and really make an effort to get the best location for observing the site. I hate to think that an well planned earthcache is only as good as a drive-by McDs sighting! With Waymarking are they REALLY equal??? As a matter of fact, they aren't equal. The McDonald's category has already been rated down heavily by the community thus far, and only shows up when you have your popularity filter on 100% as opposed to Earthcaches which are in the top 10%. At this point they ALWAYS show up, no matter what. If all you care about is earthcaches, you never have to go anywhere else. Each category is going to have its own stats and rankings. You'll also be able to see cumulative rankings and stats for the entire site, but we plan to weigh the importance of categories based on a yet-to-be-determined algorithm consisting of various factors such as popularity, # of waymarks, newness, and whatever else we can think of. We are more than aware that there will be categories that people will dislike. But we still want categories like that to exist. It's up to the manager to make his or her category interesting.

I should qualify my last post by emphasizing the "you can HYPOTHETICALLY have a Yellow Jeep" category. But most people aren't interested in waymarks that won't be there when you search for them again. Logging people's cars is kind of a freaky thing to do I think, unless they clearly aren't going anywhere anytime soon. But nonetheless, the point still stands that waymark categories are basically locationless caches.

The only thing I see that's missing here is that for somebody POSTING a waymark (a would-be Waymark Guide), they can see the POSTING requirements as specified my the category manager, but they are not shown the LOGGING requirements which each of the guide's visitors will need to adhere to when they log. It would probably be helpful to show the guide these logging requirements on the "Add a New Waymark" page so the guide will know what his visitors will see when they log a visit. Not a bad idea. We'll throw it around and see what comes up.

I don't want to get in a big argument here, but I think you aren't realizing that waymark categories are now the locationless caches, not the waymarks. And while there isn't presently a "Yellow Jeep" waymark category right now, there hypothetically could be (if the community decides to let it through). There is, however, this category: "Art Vehicles", that is similar in nature to the one you're discussing. And there will soon be a "Kissmobile" category as well.

Not only can you still find the exclusivity, but you can set the level of exclusiveness (n%) to your own personal definition of "Wow" by using the popularity filter on the right (assuming the more something is "Wow", the more people will like it). Yeah, I know, I'm just not seeing it. I'm assuming that things are still lumped together when I look at other people's stats pages etc? I personally prefer to have a 'hard' limit, not a personally set one. Something outside of the individual user's control. I can see where you're comming from, I just don't buy it. One thing to keep in mind is that the stats that are displayed right now are extremely rudimentary compared to what they will be. Pretty much all you get at the moment is a list of waymarks you've posted, a list of categories you manage, a list of visits and a list of waymarks that you have visits for. There's more to come.

What exactly about the locationless caches on Geocaching.com are you not seeing yourself as able to do with Waymarking.com? In a majority of cases, the locationless experience should actually be enhanced, not the other way around, as we haven't taken anything away. You still have the locationless cache in the form of a waymark category, and the individual logs in the form of waymarks. The beauty now is that you can actually search for and visit the waymarks. You can "log the logs" so to speak. For example, the person who owned the "kitschy capitals" locationless would now manage a category called "kitschy capitals" or "kitschy capital signs". Instead of posting logs when you found a sign, you'd now post each sign as their own waymark. It's the same experience. However, now people can actually search what used to be the logs (and are now waymarks), and even visit the locations if they wanted. You can now look for the logs (waymarks) in your area if you want. The only difference is in how they are organized. Did you think it was tedious to sort through each of the logs? What exactly would you do if you actually wanted to visit one of them? How would you find the ones in your area? You couldn't. Well now you can.

Looks like the travel channel is doing their best to validate my choice of categories! Release the hounds and gather these points for me! The Travel Channel: Most Unique McDonald's Hat Tip: Bear Paughs

FYI, heavy props will go out to anyone who posts these locations in my category.

The travel channel has sold out and gone commercial? How dare they!

Yeah, that's not a good thing. Were you trying to post a waymark? Which field was the problem field?

For sure you will get separated stats to start with, mainly because of time constraints. I can't speak for what will be included on geocaching.com, but I do see a likelihood that geocaching stats could be optionally displayed alongside the Waymarking stats on the Waymarking stats page in the future.

Here's an example: My McDonald's category Waymark posting instructions: 1. Please mark the coordinates at one of the entrances to the McDonald's. If the McDonald's is inside a mall, please mark the mall entrance closest to the restaurant. 2. Please try to come up with a name for your McDonald's that is unique, so that people don't mistake it for another McDonald's. Don't just call it "Seattle McDonald's", as there are hundreds of McDonald's that could be labeled that way. Try "Greenlake Stone Way McDonald's" or "Fairwood Petrovisky McDonald's" instead. 3. (Optional, but strongly recommended) Please upload a photo of the McDonald's so that you can see the entire building, or stand (e.g. mall McDonald's) Waymark visiting instructions: 1. To log this "WayMac", you must have eaten at this particular location. Please enter the items you ordered from this visit in the log description. 2. Also, if there isn't already a picture listed for the location, it'd certainly be nice of you to include one!

The requirements aren't the same. The category owner sets rules for posting a waymark in his category, and he also sets different rules for visiting the waymarks that are in his category. The waymark poster's job is to act as the guide for that particular spot. The key is to put as much correct information as possible.

Hmm. There may be a bit of confusion here. When you asked about what info to place in the description, I thought you were talking about doing so as a category owner, not as a waymark poster. It is the category manager who sets up the rules for how both waymarks AND logs are posted in his/her category. You can see this in action on the McDonald's category when you attempt to post a log for any of the mcdonald's that are presently in the system. The copy you borrowed from me is actually already in place when people try to visit your waymark, as it runs across the board for all posted McDonald's. In short: each category manager has a field that allows him to create the rules for the waymarks AND the logs. This way they are consistent for all waymarks within the category. As a waymark poster you are only responsible for getting the information correct about your waymark. You are, in a sense, a guide for that particular spot. You are charged with the task of educating and informing about that one spot, since you are the expert for that location. You have to remember, we've moved the tier up one level, so where a locationless cache was once in the place of a waymark, it now takes the form of a category. As a waymark poster it isn't necessary to put instructions about visiting a waymark, because they are already in place.

Most likely there will be separate stats for each activity, and also separate stats per category for each activity within said category.

Don't say that too soon, young skywalker. It will be a game. But you are right that it isn't geocaching.

I think WayMac should be for a commercial waymark or one placed in Boston, not necessarily a lame one. But I'm biased of course. May I offer "WhackMark" as a replacement.

Here's mine for the McDonald's category:

It's a good point. I'll chat it up with the office and we'll make the call this week.

Interesting. While I would indeed classify this as a bug (because it sends you back to the specific category after going to the home page), I think you are mistaking the "search" feature for the "location filter". The location filter (which is on the home page and also on each category page) narrows your directory down to categories contained within a 10 mile radius of the point you designate in your search. Once you run a location filter it stays on until you turn it off (there are switches on each category page). An actual waymark search takes place within a particular category and only searches that category for the waymarks that it contains. At this point it's unlikely that you'll get too many results back, since there are only a few waymarks in the system right now, but in the high level categories you should get at least a couple. All that being said, the best way to ensure you get results is to go post some waymarks in your own area! Thanks for posting the bug.

Why? Please explain the difference between finding a benchmark on Waymarking.com or on geocaching.com. As I said earlier today in a different thread, commited geocachers will look down on waymarkers (and maybe vice versa). I asked you a very specific question. Explain the difference between finding a benchmark on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com. Remove all the touchy feely "look down" stuff and answer the question. First, I wasn't the one you asked. I just barged uninvited into the conversation. But my answer is simple. Waymarking does not require going anywhere. I can legally log waymarks and never leave my nice air conditioned room. I did that earlier this morning here. The category says "Instructions for logging waymarks of this category: No log instructions provided." The owner says in the logging rules "Go ahead! Waymarking is just for fun, no rules! But if you see something funny, try to capture it and post it for everyone to see!" I believe I met all the requirements without breaking a sweat. You are supposed to at least visit the area of a BM. I was told last year that I could use a pair of binoculars to see something that looked about right to verify I was there (I can provide a link if needed) and there is some rigor in the BM community that just sitting at home writing logs isn't good enough. "Real" geocaches have a log to sign (virtuals and locationless are gone from there and are over here now, right?). So, BMers think they are closer to GCers because they at least require you to get off your tush and go somewhere. WMers don't absolutely require that. Yes, if and when the BM category is finalized the rules could be even more strict here than they currently are on GC. Personally I would strongly encourage that. Digital cameras are getting inexpensive enough that BMs should require a picture, IMHO. But as it stands today, I can easily see that many BMers don't want their "caches" moved over here where all the lazy rabble are being sent. (No, I don't believe WMers are lazy rabble). I think you're missing the point. You don't have to go to the waymark in order to POST it, but you still have to go there to VISIT (log) it. No one can prove whether or not someone went to the waymark or not, but if they don't actually go there, they are violating the spirit of the game. There are category managers who collect waymarks, there are waymark posters and there are waymark visiters (loggers). You don't have to visit a waymark to POST it, but you certainly are supposed to go to the waymark to VISIT it. This might help you understand how things work on Waymarking.com: Geocaching.com is like a Waymark Category Geocache is like a Waymark Geocache Log is like a Waymark Visit (Log) The reason locationless caches are broken is because they are presently schemed like this on GC.com: Locationless Cache is like a Waymark Category Cache Log is like a Waymark ?? is like a Waymark Visit (you can't presently visit a loc-less log) Make sense?

It would be fun to have an urbandictionary.com style glossary where people can add their own terms, but developing something like that would probably take too much time away from the higher priority new features that are planned. We'll do our best to add new terms to the glossary as they are created. Maybe a forum thread about new Waymarking terms should be opened?

The horror!