Razak
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Razak
-
-
I dont like the idea of removing "bad categories". Who decides that? What if there are 5 people who love a category and the rest dont like it? Does it get removed because the rest cant just ignore it? Why spoil the fun of the 5 who like the category?
Well it isn't removed, it just becomes unviewable to those who don't shell out $3 a month... It's sort of Groundspeak's way of creating the premium geocaches automatically. I thought it used to be 30% anyway... if they did up it to 50 I'm glad, I think the idea is good, I'm not sure about the execution or what not... I always vote on the ones I like, rarely vote on ones I dislike... usually just vote for like and hate, the dislikes are caught in the middle so will likely have a decent grade for the most part.
-
Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")
Walgreens disposable camera is recycled. They take the outer covering and use them again for future cameras. I am hardly making the environment worse that way. Of course, all the driving I do, using gas...that isnt helping the environment.
Hardly disposable camera... should rename it recyclable camera... disposable implies that you dispose of it... And believe you me if they a car based on water as was invented after World War II, and I had the money, I'd be in line to get one.
Quasar... my short argument was that if someone wants proof of visit they should do it in question form like virtual caches... you and tsegi were countering me by saying that you wanted proof of visit and I should buy disposable cameras... neither of these were really related to the subject so much.
What I think the problem is is that you two are saying what *I* should do, and *I* am arguing what all waymarkers and categories should do... try to make it so that as many people that can waymark, will be able, to regardless of if they got the money to do so. I think the questions worked fine for this in virtual caches, I see no reason why we need to get more complicated than that. (Though some waymarks I can totally get are better with a picture, but not most of them). My argument against sticking a GPS in the picture was that this was totally unnecessary and more often than not sticking a GPS in the picture have ruined my pictures to not being able to even allow me to waymark it... (i get a nice shot of my GPS, not much else though lol I should create a category for just people showing a GPS at a certain coord with nothing interesting at the location, that'd rock)
And for the record tsegi, I have scrounged up a really crappy camera (and i mean really crappy, this camera would have cost 20 bucks 3 or 4 years ago)... but I do have problems with it with stuff like GPS being stuck needlessly in the picture... and I will still argue that if there is an easier answer to verification that includes more people in the activity THAT should be the standard... this is what the questions is... pictures are nice, but like I said they are not necessary, if you desire a picture with the thing just say please try to take a picture of you enjoying the location, or something lots of geocaches do this already, just dont make the poor sit in a corner because they are poor... it just isn't right.
-
Virtuals all were supposed to have a variation of proof. It was a necessity due to the lack of a logbook. If you have found Virtuals that did not require proof, it is likely because the owner changed it or is too lazy to continue checking the find, or they have abandoned it, and then Virtual should (in my opinion) be Archived or Adopted.
Apparantly you misread... I am not saying that virtuals had no proof of visitation, I am saying they did not require photo... I am sure there are some virtuals out there that do require photos, but usually they require an answer to a question... What I am saying is that it is not a valid argument to say we need to have pictures with a gps in it as proof of visit just because virtuals required you to answer a question... they are seperate ways to require a proof of visitation.
Every Planet Hollywood looks the same as every other Planet Hollywood to me. Most people set the requirement to be "Include a picture of yourself at the Waymark, or a picture of your GPS at the Waymark". The Owner doesn't want to see dozens of pictures of the same thing, true, but they are simply asking for a way to ensure the Visitor was really there.
Maybe I'm wrong because I've never actually been to one but it was my understanding that Planet Hollywoods were full of movie memorabilia. Given this, each one would have a different item because I thought that they each had the real thing, not copies... though maybe they have changed this.
The reason is to establish proof. That is a valid reason IMHO
Well it isn't in my opinion. For a number of reasons, the least of which you don't need a picture to establish proof. The better of the reasons is that it really doesn't matter if someone visits or not. But if someone wants proof, to each his own... you still don't need a picture to get this proof.
There are alternatives. You could contact the Waymark Owner that you are wanting claim a Visit on and get them authorize an 'exception' based upon your circumstance. Or you could contact the Category Manager and request the option to update to include a "Verification Question" option. That would still mean that the Waymark Owner would have to edit their WM to include that option.
If you don't have a camera, it will be a bit more effort for you to claim a Visit. But since you are already willing to email an answer to a question, then you must be willing to email to explain why you should be able to Visit without a camera. If they agree, be sure to include it in your log that the Waymark Owner was nice enough to allow the exception and why.
If waymark/category owners are willing to accept other forms of verification they NEED to have wording in their descriptions saying what type of proof they are looking for, or at the least they should say that they will listen...
I could turn the tables on you and ask, is it really so hard to get a disposable camera and have it put on CD when you are done? At this point, it is less than the cost of the gas to drive to the locations. I know, because this is how we do it.
Well as long as you are willing to incur the fee of the disposable camera, etc. for every category/waymark you require people to take pictures of, yes this would be an option... I don't care if they don't cost much, they still cost. Some people have a hard time with the cost of gas as it was 6 months ago, tacking on more is not a valid argument as to why anybody can do it. Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")
However, your idea to ignore such categories that require photo proof, while at the same time saying that categories should require photo proof is your way of just saying to someone that "Hey Ignore Waymarking" as a selling point. It is not good business sense for this site to do that, I don't think at least. I think this site would be fun, but unfortunately it seems more and more that there are too many here saying "Hey ignore Waymarking" just so that they can have some proof that you are ignoring Waymarking. It is ridiculous. I think more effort should be done to make this site more inclusive of any who wish to join, and less exclusive... especially considering that the population who actually use this site is rather small... to say to people who don't own a camera that they should not join is rather obnoxious... I'm sorry I'm not an elitist, I'd rather that the poor have a chance to play as well.
All in all though, two people argue me, neither have actually argued my points... it is interesting. Therefor I must assume that I am right, that proof of visit via photo ID is not even remotely necessary.
-
I thought the point was to have fun with this. My fun includes requiring proof of visit, a challenge for the finder.
My fun tends to have nothing to do with proof of purchase but tends to get ruined if the proof of purchase results in throwing random objects in the picture for no particular reason...
You can say that Locationless & Virtuals required a proof of purchase, I haven't done locationless but the virtuals I've looked at did not even require photos most of the time. So I don't feel this is a worthy argument.
My theory is that #1 is fine if there is a reason to do it (adding different points of view of the waymark, inside/outside/upsidedown whatever... But if it is something that doesn't have many views, is boring to look at, really has no point for having 200 pictures of the same object, I just don't see why the picture is needed (for instance Generic McDonald's #339 has no reason for a picture proof of purchase they all look the same... but if you had say Planet Hollywood category, it might be interesting if you asked for a picture of the booth you sat at, or an object in there that is interesting (since those places are museums essentially)).
#2 I just can't think of a reason why you'd do it... if you are worried that someone goes and finds a picture online... well I understand that people want to know that their waymark is being "enjoyed" but really it isn't that huge of deal... just stop asking for the picture if you are really worried about that. IF there is a reason to take the picture, this will never be a problem... this only becomes a problem if there is no reason. And I've been unable to make a few waymarks because the picture with the GPS just didn't work out which sucks IMO. This totally ruins the point of it for me and what really annoys me is that some of the categories I would be most interested in are rendered unvisitable/markable due to retarded GPS requirements
If you can't fulfill a reason to take the picture and are really jonesing for the proof that someone visited for some odd reason... just insert a question like virtuals... is this really so hard?
-
It sounds to me like there may be more than one category that replaces virtuals then. The majority of virtuals I have seen on geocaching.com had no surprise at all - just a verification that could only be found at the location.
I think a lot of the virtuals out there now would fit into already existing categories... for instance in my town there is a virtual that points to a statute of Lincoln that is like the one in D.C.... think there are two or three categories this one could fit in. (might even fit in a WoW type one as well if we think it as something that not many people would know bout... I lived in this city almost all my life and never knew the statue was there and it was downtown and not too small either... it just so happens it is on the campus mall so you can only see it if you are walking campus (thus I'm sure most students know of it... but unless you walk campus you may not))
-
I think it's a fairly good description and you may very well have narrowed down what to look for more than we had before. This one is a lot more natural and I think has a higher chance of getting passed... The park issue I can see either way... maybe like you said you can get around the requirement by having the entry only the entry and then the final point be after the trail... (kinda like how the description would say for inside a building mark the entrance and have clues to get to destination...)
-
Almost hate to ask these questions:
How are you going to determine the "Wow Factor" of International locations? For the most part (and I'm reaching while saying this I know) locations in North America are going to be easier to judge than a location in the Third World. That was based solely on the current feel of this thread that the locations should be Unknown while Impressive.
I think one thing that'd help would be one or two international officers to judge these better, but of course this would only happen if someone actually volunteered to do that...
But like Tsegi said, this is where the "prove it" would come into play... I would assume international markers know that the majority of Waymarking right now is American (both US and Canada), so they would need to make sure to go an extra mile that we KNOW why this location is special because we are ignorant about it maybe by looks....
4) Prove that it has WoW factor
Seems viable to me.
-
I'm the 'good twin'?
I think there are many that might argue that point.However, while I can see both sides of the coin, I am looking to fall in line with the majority. That coupled with being egotistical (or as my associates refer me.... 'anal retentive') then I must expect the same from other Category Managers.
How could I expect compliance, if I don't expect the same belief from the Category Managers (whether they expect it or not) that I attempt to place Waymarks with. Rules are made to be followed, although things can get updated from time to time as warranted. Either way... we all have our expectations, but the Category Manager is the final word on the subject respective to their Category.
The Blue QuasarSo no Quasy's Fun Spot or other needlessly vulgar category name? too bad=/
-
Razak, an example of a wow factor for something that is 65 yrs old. I visited a location recently (keeping it secret for now lol) where there was a flagpole and a plaque. I read the plaque and was blown away. The flagpole was from the deck of the USS Arizona, retrieved and placed in this secret location. I was not born until long after that event, but seeing the flagpole was definitely a wow factor.
Im hoping that these examples will help us define the category.
I again like this idea... again I am just kind of weary of the 911 memorials for this kind of category, because like I said the event is awefully fresh in our minds... there are tons of these memorials out there (and I'm sure someone will make a category for them), but am sure people will be deeply moved by every one of them, not because it is a cool memorial (like the USS Arizona one) but because it is a memorial that is fresh... After all, I do think 911 will have a hold on this country much like Pearl Harbor does in the future... but there is really only 1 real memorial that anyone visits... and that is pearl harbor... I wouldn't be surprised if in 60 the only memorial left are the weird ones like the USS Arizona one you mentioned, or the Ground Zero one which will keep its signficance. The others will sort of die away as interest fades. (I'm sure there will also be one in Washington stuck somewhere too) That was my only intent with my remark on time-related events....
-
I would encourage multiple photographs, in particular I would at least require one detail photograph. Much of Lloyds work shines in the details. An example of this requirement is farmers markets - they require an overall shot and a close-up shot of some produce. The same idea works here except the more the better. One thing I find about waymarks is that they are neat to just look at, and more photos makes that mo bettuh.
I would agree.. Although it isn't always possible given that they aren't always public property.
-
Ok, since it was brought up, how WOW would a 9/11 memorial be?
In the east coast area, must be a lot of them. Im guessing not all of them would be wow. In Arizona, there are 2 that I know of. Both are crosses made from the WTC. I was almost in tears when I saw one of them at a cache in Arizona. I remember reaching out to touch the cross made from WTC steel. My hand shook. An emotional surprise. Very wow factor for me.
Given that there may only be two in AZ, I might actually be inclined to say they are WoW... depending on what they are/how they are made.... surely not everyone of themw ould be WoW however... some are rather generic as far as memorials go and like you mentioned the east coast likely has bunches... I live in wisconsin and I don't think they are uncommon... however, i'm not sure how many are made out of WTC steel, or how many are actually done very well... the reasons something is wow would need to be explained somehow in the submission so that an officer could make a quality judgement on why this thing should be approved... if you submitted it without saying it was made of WTC steel or that there are only 2 in AZ, then perhaps it wouldn't get approved when it might if you did...
another issue to sort out on this type of memorial would be whether current events would fit in. I think while you certainly had a WoW reaction to the memorial... However, this reaction is likely because it is a recent event... I wonder if people would have the same reaction in 50 years, even if they were alive when the WTC collapsed... time heals wounds. This is something that would surely need to be discussed... would WoW need to be timeless? Something that would be WoW regardless of what happened in the last 10 years or so.... (I'd imagine there would be Berlin Wall areas that actually are timeless....)
-
What if there was a way for the community to rate categories and then visitors could filter out categories that didn't seem to be gathering general support of a "good" category?
^^ Isn't this already in? Popularity filter no?
-
Quasar... I've always thought of you as my good twin... and as such I would like to say you are everything I am! Thusly I can surely say that you are very egotistical, however I don't care what you name your waymarks. To be honest I think the name of waymarks is fairly unimportant as long as the waymark fits the category.... (and you try to at least be a little descriptive in the title... hmmm we need a water rides so that we can eventually get "Quasy's Plunge" or some demented sounding name lol)
In the spirit of things, if you ever make a video game arcade waymark, be my guest to mark it as Quasy's Fun Spot!
Ok now seriously I want to start a category for "Quasy Stuff"!!!! Anyone wanna be an officer? LOL
-
I think now we know why some of the features on the site take so long to implement
LoL wait until the next update when they add phat lewt, instanced waymarks, and player-vs-player combat!
-
(btw... wow players are newbs but I digress).
wha+3v3r d00d mah l337 lvl 60 w4r10ck t0t411y pwnz0rz j00!!!11SHIFT+1!
/derail
LoL, it's true though, the game is weak.. i mean how long does it take to get a lvl 60 warlock... a weekend?=P Speaking of which we really need a general thread for Waymarking or something... so we can get off topic every now and then.
-
-
Unsolvable now, but perhaps in the future we'd have access to tracking data. Our goal is to allow movable objects to be tracked in near real time. For the concept of Waymarking to work now, however, the goal is to find stationary objects. And since you'll ultimately see the ferry at the terminal it covers all the bases given the current technology anyway.
I for the record am thoroughly hoping that you guys can do this because I think this would be hella cool. (As I'm sure you realize via my more off the wall movable objects and railroad cars proposals).
-
Since the group management is based on some experiences with World of Warcraft, I would expect that similar things would happen. People run around in the WoW game asking people to sign their charter (it takes 15). You'll see some recruting going on here as well.
We have a feature enhancement planned to allow you to automatically turn down requests. I probably get inundated with them more than most - even with my abrasive personality
Got bored of WoW in a week so never knew they had a 15 person minimum on guilds.. that is harsh... no wonder they get spam... most games need like 5 or 6 to start a guild... some need just 1. I never would have thought that'd be the source of your idea lol (btw... wow players are newbs but I digress).
The automatically turn down thing would be nice. I would suggest to have it return a message to the invitor stating the reason for the denial... just in case someone logically makes an invite...
-
it is hard for me - with my schoolenglish - to understand that all correctly.
Thanks for written in 'slow english'
I used to play an online game with someone who knew no english before he started playing the game... it is amazing the amount you can learn from the internet=P
-
awww....
sometimes I dont understand the rules
for what are the categories?
To find a waymark faster? When I search a waymark where I will go, I will search in my near or around a place. On secopnd place I will have a look at the catergory.
I understand why you are having issues on this... in another thread we talk about splitting up churches more because there are too many for a single category and here I am saying maybe you don't need to split em up lol. Personally, I don't dig the location categories such as Florida this or Arizona that. My theory is there needs to be a reason to categorize unless a category gets unwieldy (notice when I mentioned categorizing churches I changed it to denomination not location). A lot of the time some categories need certain variables and such that another can't fulfill... I think the historical markers are done by different organizations (so I'm told <shrug>).
Another issue is that I do believe that you can switch on the origin filter so that it'll filter out everything but what is near to your selected origin (I could be wrong if this is actually working, the location thing seems to work like half the time in various places.) But assuming it actually works, then you shouldn't need a location (even if you travel you can create a new origin and just filter there.) This will also get easier when they incoprorate google maps into Waymarking...
On the other side: have a look to the categories 'Grafitty' or ' ... Histroic Marker' at the first one I can mark every streetcorner here and the other one I cant mark my Histroic Markes here...
Sorry, but I havent got fun to talk about categories, subcategories, number of object that can be marked. The weather is fine and want out in the nature. When that is that what 'Waymarking' is -> Have fun
The Graffiti category has a fairly good list of rules, largely because of a good discussion in the forums before it got accepted... but you can't just go get any grafitti and put it in. Historic markers, I'm a proponent fo internationalizing and finding specific categories within instead of having localized categories... however, most seem to like the localization of it <shrug> (I think once all the ones that you can find all the historic marker websites are listed, these categories willb ecome fairly lame as they will all get marked, and without any interesting structure, there is little reason to visit unless on vacation and that is assuming you think of stopping at historic places that you got a 50/50 shot at being interesting to you interesting)
For the categories you are looking for I would be fine with just a "city walls," "framework houses," and Churches with 4 or 5 subcategory denominations (there seems to be more interest in getting these underway, you may be able to get away with just starting the first two)
Oh and if you are looking to recruit for a category, go to the category recruitment section... you might find people more willing to join groups there (hard to tell the difference between this one and that sometimes, but this one seems to be more for categories already created?)
-
Mold-a-Rama .... I had to google for a few minutes to find the name that I knew for these. I remember them at Brookfield Zoo and the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. I found a "vintage" machine for sale for $9500.
I hope someone else signs up - I'd love to see waymarks for current machines.
Oh man I can't believe you found the name for em!!! A few months ago when I was trying to explain em I couldn't for the life of me remember it or find it. Mold-o-Rama sounds right to me. I sadly don't even know where many are anymore (Ford Museum has some when I went a couple years ago) unfortunately they are being replaced by the coin smashers, the whole reason I wanted this category was because of this reason... would be nice to be able to find em again.
Thanks RJMK for the research that apparantly I am inept at doing lol!
-
Others have already touched on the major points that define "Wow" for me, but I think the primary characteristic is the "unexpected" quality of the location. That unexpected quality can arise from the location itself (a natural wonder), the story behind the location (so that's where that happened), or the sheer labor that someone put into creating the location (I recall a castle being constructed in the Rockies over a period of years by a single guy with no help out of local stones and mortar). I expect a nice view when I go into the mountains, I don't expect to see a multi-turreted castle that's a labor of years by a single eccentric fellow.
Besides the unexpected quality, I'd like to see a "spectacular" quality in most cases. While an unusual flower might be an interesting sight, it won't usually make me go "wow". I don't know if size matters directly, but I can't come up with any "wow" candidates that didn't give me room to wander around a little.
Cross-listing? Certainly! I don't plan to go looking for "wow" gold in the McDonalds franchise category. A gold nugget would be lost in the franchised sand and never found at all. The purpose of this category is in no way diminished by having the same item listed in a more extensive category because of one of its more mundane characteristics. We OUGHT to mine other categories for the really amazing stuff that would get lost because it's buried in with a lot of other things of interest only to certain groups.
The problem remains of how to set the hurdle for listing in the Wow category. We can't really vote in advance on things we've never seen. Posting pictures and descriptions would help but would tend to diminish the "unexpected" factor.
I like the explanation in the first paragraph pretty well personally... I can't remember the details of the WoW trees category so I can't look at it to see how this category could be bettered... but it would be nice to get a list of criteria not unlike you posted in first paragraph ( Criteria 1) the waymark fills the expectation of a, b, or c) and the second paragraph. (Criteria 2) Spectacular quality) maybe a couple more definitions could make it more refined...
also something that may not hurt would be example waymarks... maybe make a website with 2 or 3 different potential WoW waymarks that you would expect in the category, and even explain why this waymark would work. And maybe also have a couple of examples of what may not work... I remember the WoW trees had a picture of what could be a waymark, but never really explained what isn't... the could be helped a little and you knew what it was talking about... but the worry with this category is what won't be allowed more maybe than what will....
-
I want to create a Category and a subcategory for citywalls.
Buildings => Citywalls => Citywalls in Germany
other subcategories can be
-> citywalls in England
-> citywalls in ...
(for every country it is possible)
I am thinking, that every country have it own group.
How about this idea?
argh more subcategories for places... I imagine there are bunches of city walls in europe... but are there so many that you would need to subcategorize this into places? I would imagine it would be a fine sized main category for this one.
-
"Wow, this is great, we're so glad someone showed us this". The criterion could be as simple as "is this worth going out of your way to look for?" For a lampost at a Walmart parking lot- NO! A glass headstone on a hidden cemetary on Murano Island near Venice- Yes!!
I like the idea of the wow category, as I'm sure a lot of people... but the WoW tree category I think got turned down just because of the vagueness of such a category... for geocaching it seemed to be ok to have this vagueness... for Waymarking it doesn't seem as ok... people want to know what type of thing they are looking for and this is a problem with vague wording.
At any rate I'll join as an officer.
Edit - As a side note I do think it is interesting that even though wow categories will get knocked down due to vagueness... I think it is also ironic that it'd probably be much more difficult to actually get a waymark in this category than others... not because of its vagueness, but more because it is likely more strict on being interesting. In reality, you could likely create a Wow Subcategory for every category on Waymarking.com.... WoW McDonald's... the most interesting McDonald's to go to... this might be a more worthy endeavor to maybe get tech in categories to allow for a best of list of each category... (still might not get ideas like glass cemetaries or what not into Waymarking but might be a good idea...)
I think there are many that might argue that point.
The Blue Quasar
Gps Or Person Required In A Waymark Picture?
in Getting Started with Waymarking (Read-Only)
Posted
My question answers:
1) Regular
2) Proof question, no photo
But this is essentially what I've been saying... Right now we are in beta, if i were Groundspeak I'd be looking past the current users and get more. And to get more you have to make it as usable for everyone as possible... not just for the rich... And yes you do need a computer, and no you do not need a GPSr as currently I can type everything into google and find directions and since everyone is nice enough to provide a picture, I know what I'm looking for. But even so, does the fact that some money is required predicate that we should require people to use even more? Is this honestly the best idea? And Tsegi, yes someone without a camera can make a comment, but why should they essentially be excluded from a log just because they don't have a camera... If this is your solution, let us take out logs entirely and just leave comments... no numbers, this would solve all our problems! (BTW your previous post is rediculous, I never mentioned that I didn't have a camera in this thread (in a previous thread yes but that was awhile ago), but that doesn't mean I can't still argue for those who may not have a camear... I do not see myself as better than those who have not just because I have, I am sorry that I apparantly do not share this view with others. Also, how very american of you to think that people can only get from point A to point B without the use of a car... last I recall there were other things invented such as trains, busses (yes they use gas but are much cheaper), bikes, and *gasp* legs. Some people don't need to use the car to waymark, some people know how to walk.)
I honestly do not get the reluctance to for people in these threads to understand that questions work just as well to proove a visit as a picture with a hand in it (I'm gonna start going to waymarks and logging them with the GPS covering the object and unreadable, if that works I'll start doing it out my window). And if 2 things work as well as the other for proof, I just don't get why you NEED so badly to go to the more expensive route... if it is because the tech isn't as great as you'd like for creating a question easily and getting the proof, then instead of starting these threads debating how to screw over people, why not try to pressure Jeremy & crew into adding the tech to get it done? I think it would be very easy for them to add tech that would allow a waymark creator to set up a question & answer and have the logger match the answer to the waymarker's answer to get approval. This isn't difficult to do, in fact Groundspeak already has this tech down... we use it when we log in to the site. This is the third time I've brought up this idea, yet no one even acknowledges it. Yet people continue to post these threads... it really does boggle me. Why are we making it more costly? Seriously Why? Does everyone here work for a camera company or something?