Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Jeremy

Creating New Waymark Categories

Recommended Posts

Every time I read this post I get something else out of it. There is so much information. So, forgive me if I am still covering something here that is discussed elsewhere.

 

My question is looking ahead at handling growth of a category. Let's say the initial category is 'Railroad Locomotives on Display.' After a year, there might be 100 waymarks and it looks like the rate of entering waymarks is steady. You might decide that you want to split the category to 'steam' and 'diesel' locomotives. Can you split up a category once it has been established or are we 'stuck' with the category as initially established? If a category can be split, how do you split it up? I suppose that you, as the category manager, would ask Groundspeak to change the taxonomy to have a branch (folder) called 'Locomotives', then two categories that hold waymarks: 'Diesel Locomotives' and 'Steam Locomotives.' Then, I guess the category manager would have to decide which waymark goes to which category. Would the category manager do it or would that manager tell Groundspeak which waypoint would go to which category? Another option would be to archive the 'Locomotive' Category and put 'Diesel Locomotive' and Steam Locomotive' in its place, then the category manager might try to recreate the waypoints in each category. This wouldn't work if there are visits and photos attached.

 

My concern arose from making several suggestions to establish subcategories under categories that I thought were going to be rather large. But, it might take years to fill in each of those categories and the structure would be cumbersome and unnecessary, initially.

Edited by NorStar

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to suggest that the already established category "Landlocked Lighthouses" be changed to just "Lighthouses". The lighthouses in this country and around the world have a very large following and I think a lot of people would appreciate this category.

 

Edit: I would also like to add that I think, as others have suggeted, that the idea of a geo-yellow pages could become enormous as well it should. Therefore, I would like to suggest that ALL primary categories be States or Provinces with the current list of categories as subs.

Edited by CapnJackSparrow

Share this post


Link to post
You might decide that you want to split the category to 'steam' and 'diesel' locomotives. Can you split up a category once it has been established or are we 'stuck' with the category as initially established?

Personally, I think minor subcategories such as this should be handled via the category variables. I'm hoping that we will be able to filter or search on the category variables at some point.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post
You might decide that you want to split the category to 'steam' and 'diesel' locomotives.  Can you split up a category once it has been established or are we 'stuck' with the category as initially established?

Personally, I think minor subcategories such as this should be handled via the category variables. I'm hoping that we will be able to filter or search on the category variables at some point.

 

--Marky

This is exactly right. Anytime you start thinking about adding a subcategory, consider first whether it would make a variable instead. The idea is not to clutter the directory with endless trees of subcategories but to make the information easy to retreive. We intend to make the variables searchable in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to suggest that the already established category "Landlocked Lighthouses" be changed to just "Lighthouses". The lighthouses in this country and around the world have a very large following and I think a lot of people would appreciate this category.

 

"Landlocked Lighthouses" was created because a former locationless cache owner has already claimed plain-old lighthouses. He/she simply hasn't made it active yet.

 

Edit: I would also like to add that I think, as others have suggeted, that the idea of a geo-yellow pages could become enormous as well it should. Therefore, I would like to suggest that ALL primary categories be States or Provinces with the current list of categories as subs.

 

Since you can already filter the directory by location, having categories broken out by state or province would be redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to suggest that the already established category "Landlocked Lighthouses" be changed to just "Lighthouses". The lighthouses in this country and around the world have a very large following and I think a lot of people would appreciate this category.

 

"Landlocked Lighthouses" was created because a former locationless cache owner has already claimed plain-old lighthouses. He/she simply hasn't made it active yet.

 

Edit: I would also like to add that I think, as others have suggeted, that the idea of a geo-yellow pages could become enormous as well it should. Therefore, I would like to suggest that ALL primary categories be States or Provinces with the current list of categories as subs.

 

Since you can already filter the directory by location, having categories broken out by state or province would be redundant.

K thanx :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

Managed to spare a bit of time to browse new site, and skim through the forums.

 

A suggestion for a sub-cat on places would be:

'Named After A Person'

Then under that:

Named After->Explorers

Named After->Poets

Named After->Presidents(or Leaders)

Named After->Artists

Named After->Authors

Named After->Presidents

 

You get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post

Somehow I missed this thread before. But thanks to my instant rewind device I can catch up LOL.

 

Having broad initial levels for the Catagories is the way to go, in my opinion. I totally agree with Bootron when he/she said that the top level should be Global.

 

Here is why...

 

Me, being Canadian, I hope to have a Sub-Catagory that is of Canadian Conent. I won't say what it is because this is not a thread about suggesting new catagories, nor is there one either :)

 

So if I wanted to have "Canadian Geodetic Disks" it would fit in the THINGS>Benchmarks.... that makes sense

 

But once you get to the one level below the top... having it be divided by State, or Town, or keeping it Global and defining by other parameters... perfect.

 

If you have to keep moving through more and more branches, it would get too difficult to find what you are looking for.

 

Maybe when the whole Waymarking thing takes off and we are swimming in huge amounts of choices, it will be time to set additional levels and shift them around... that doesn't mean they would be affected negatively, they would just be relocated.

 

People seem to fear that some things have to move, but if things don't move they don't improve.... keeps things fresh and growing.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Edit: I would also like to add that I think, as others have suggeted, that the idea of a geo-yellow pages could become enormous as well it should. Therefore, I would like to suggest that ALL primary categories be States or Provinces with the current list of categories as subs.

 

Since you can already filter the directory by location, having categories broken out by state or province would be redundant.

True but not if you live near the border of two countries and you only want waymarks from your own.

 

Olar

Share this post


Link to post

Edit: I would also like to add that I think, as others have suggeted, that the idea of a geo-yellow pages could become enormous as well it should. Therefore, I would like to suggest that ALL primary categories be States or Provinces with the current list of categories as subs.

 

Since you can already filter the directory by location, having categories broken out by state or province would be redundant.

True but not if you live near the border of two countries and you only want waymarks from your own.

 

Olar

In that situation you could use the advanced search to filter by country.

Share this post


Link to post
Managed to spare a bit of time to browse new site, and skim through the forums.

 

A suggestion for a sub-cat on places would be:

'Named After A Person'

Then under that:

Named After->Explorers

Named After->Poets

Named After->Presidents(or Leaders)

Named After->Artists

Named After->Authors

Named After->Presidents

 

You get the idea.

These could also be handled by a category variable. That way, it would be MUCH easier to add new options (it wouldn't require a vote).

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

Do waymarks count toward your geocaching total find count?

 

Not that the numbers matter.

 

much.

 

OK, they matter to me.

 

And a few others.

 

Just thought I'd ask.

 

wondering........

 

thanx

Share this post


Link to post

Hi

 

I would like to suggest

 

Royal Observer Corps Posts

 

under the Buildings category. These are abandoned 4 man nuclear bunkers of which there are several hundred in the UK used by the Royal Observer Corps for nuclear bomb plotting and radiation monitoring. They were all decommissioned in 1991.

 

These are visited by enthusiasts/historians and would make a great Cold War waymark.

 

Thanks, Chipmunk

Share this post


Link to post

Hello all,

 

Here is how I think the approval system should work. Sorry jeremy, but it might take a little more website development.

 

Instead of having you post in a form, have it so you can make the category listing on the Waymarking site. You can make the full fledge description and everything, but it does not get posted into the directory, instead it gets put in a special category called pending, or something like that. People who want to comment or rate can got to this category and browse all the possible categories. They can then click on one and see how it would appear if accepted, and then there is an option on the right (same place as where you can log waymarks and such) to post a comment. You have a period of comments where the category owner makes changes to the description. Then after that period is over there is a voting time, where you can vote. If it passes it disappears from the list and goes through the veto stage, and then if it passes it is posted. If it does not pass the voting it gets deleted, done deal.

 

This gets the whole process of the forums and it makes it a little more organized.

 

Hope that all makes sense.

 

-Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post

We've been working through these challenges, both for category creation and maintainence, and have determined that there needs to be a group that manages a category - not just one person.

 

It seems that if someone is in support for the category - not just someone who things it is cool - should be able to take an active role into shaping that category.

 

Also big question has come up - What happens when the manager goes on vacation or decides to quit?

 

If you're familiar with how guilds work in online games (World of Warcraft comes to mind), a group has a leader and officers which have the ability to review and publish waymarks. The leader can invite new members into the group and delegate abilities to them. It mirrors how the reviewers work with Groundspeak to publish caches. We would have a similar guild concept on Waymarking (and eventually Geocaching) to allow a larger group to manage each category.

 

Anyway, we still have to entirely flesh out the concept but part of it will be implementing a team proposal for a category instead of an individual proposal. It will involve attaining a quorum for a concept and submitting it for users to support or deny. Instead of a pure 2/3 majority instead the final no would come from Groundspeak based on any glaring "no" comments by the voting process.

 

We're still working it through but you are free to pick apart what we've come up so far.

Share this post


Link to post
there needs to be a group that manages a category - not just one person.

I have to agree with the group idea. Takes care of the "BUS THEORY" and also gives it another mini-vote...

 

I really don't see where you could have categories without them being managed somehow. I shudder at the thought of what a mess it would be without that (almost like this topic where we have suggestions of new categories, some posts about the process for creating new ones and others about different things all together).

 

As for voting, I guess if there are users who really want it, it would work. Though I see it more of only getting the response of the extremes - those who really want it and those who passionately don't. I guess the biggest worry here is that if enough categories aren't provided by the time the beta testing ends, there will be lots of these requests and how many users are really going to be interested in spending so much time voting on things rather than going to find them?

Share this post


Link to post

Rather than needing some sort of guild-like quorum to broach a topic, how about a meta-vote system similar to slashdot? Random site users are given votes to bump up or down category ideas in terms of feasability. Once they use their votes up (or a time limit expires), they must return to being normal users and wait for the next time their user# is drawn from the hat of who gets votes. The system is stabilized by keeping the average number of votes floating around the same constant at all times (as votes are used, new users are assigned votes). Users who are picked but don't use their votes up are given a lower chance to be picked next time. This sort of pseudo-jury system with forum-like input similar to what you're suggesting would mean that the group of people involved in the category is less important and the quality and need of the category is more important.

 

I can easily see people worrying about saying negative things to certain group's proposals because of the local nature of the game's communities. We already have enough instances of people taking revenge on others' caches and getting snobbish at events due to SBA logs on caches and things of that nature. Unless the submit-for-approval/comment system is double-blinded, I could see a number of animosities continuing or starting. If an anonymous voting system with random users getting votes were implemented similar to slashdot, then that could easily be avoided.

 

Right now, the suggested method has a very negative connotation to it. Since the only way to get a "no" on a category is to convice GS that the category sucks, it'd be a very affrontive and abusive process to gauntlet in order to see your ideas come to light.

Share this post


Link to post

A no vote won't instantly deny a category. Groundspeak would just be looking for particular realistic reasons why a category would be denied from being listed. We pointed out 3 major issues that would cause a category not to be listed - redundancy, inappropriateness and ambiguity (or scope). Things like "roger is a doodyhead" isn't something that would deny a category listing.

 

Categories need enough support so they will be managed sufficiently. I can see some ability for a slashdot system for individual waymarks (or perhaps, logs) but someone needs to have a vision for how the category is defined and how it should be managed. Certainly slashdot comments are moderated by the community but someone still picks the articles that should be listed and what category they should be in.

Share this post


Link to post

One concern I have is how the committees are chosen. Will the category manager be inviting his friends/ clique as the committee? This will turn Waymarking into a very elite cliquish thing, and turn off many people who are outside the cliques. (You might end up having Waymarking involve only the people in the forums.) :laughing: Would a person who loves unique mailboxes, who photographed them long before Waymarking came around, but never posts in the forums, very quietly geocaches and doesnt meet people, stand a chance of ever being on the committee that oversees that category? The perception of elitism can prevent Waymarking from being accepted by a lot of people. I can see a lot of hurt feelings because Teamwhatever was not chosen to be a part of Awesome Fish Statues category when he makes fish statues, all because he wasnt a friend of the category manager. People get upset when a cache isnt accepted. Imagine the "trauma and drama" when they are not accepted.

Share this post


Link to post

It wouldn't be one group that creates categories, it would be a group created for the purpose of managing that category. There could be restrictions on how many groups you could belong to. So the GGA group wouldn't just keep posting new category proposals to take over the site.

 

(I'm not picking on the GGA. They're just a strong organization I pulled from a hat)

 

Also, it would be a level playing field in that the category proposal would generate a timestamp and after, say, 7 days that category would be eligible for vote. Even if there was another person trying to duplicate the same proposal they would have to post it after the original poster, and during the voting process the other group could challenge it.

 

Additionally, anyone could create a group proposal, but everyone would need enough people willing to sign the charter (so to speak). The charter is a pledge that you will remain a member of the group and help to manage the category with the category leader.

 

There's not much we can do if you are an introvert on the web site, but it is a good litmus test to decide whether you can handle the management of a category. As you can see from other posts people take their denials seriously so you can't have a flame retardant shield made of tissue paper.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
As you can see from other posts people take their denials seriously so you can't have a flame retardant shield made of tissue paper.

I love that line.

 

There's not much we can do if you are an introvert on the web site, but it is a good litmus test to decide whether you can handle the management of a category.

 

Ok, that still leaves out the person who posts a lot yet isnt part of the cliques that are here. Im trying to think of all possibilities. There are quite a few posters who are not one of the group. Will this system you propose encourage the cliquishness? That will hurt Waymarking more than the occassional rogue category manager. It seems like Waymarking will just be a committee of set geocaching approvers, rather than having the members being the category managers. In that case, why bother with category managers. Why not just make those in the cliques be official gc.com approvers? That is what I can see happening if it becomes a committee of managers.

 

This is just my opinion. Im not trying to be argumentative.

Share this post


Link to post
Additionally, anyone could create a group proposal, but everyone would need enough people willing to sign the charter (so to speak). The charter is a pledge that you will remain a member of the group and help to manage the category with the category leader.

 

Would this be eligible for the category manager to approve or veto members of the charter?

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me for asking.

 

Are you suggesting that for each of the Catagories, you plan on having a team of people that are similar to reviewers to decide if something can be a Waymark?

 

I guess maybe I could see that as a solution if there was a completed list of Catagories.

 

Since I like to bring possible solutions when I question something, here goes.

 

You could take applications for Waymark Managers... in the application, you ask for a maximum of five "interests" they have.

 

So, using myself as an example

 

"Canada"

"Space"

"Army"

"Waterfalls"

"Volleyball"

 

So, when you get a list of people, you could make up your team based upon these keywords.

 

When a new Catagory is proposed, anyone that is in the list with 'hits' could be asked to join, and the more 'hits' the better. You could even rank the "interests" and score them.

 

I don't think it would be fair to utilize the same core of GC.com reviewers, unless they wanted to be included. It's a new game, and the opportunities for involvement should be open for all. Of course I can see that Jeremy already has experience with some reviewers so he knows what to expect... that makes sense too.

 

I guess it is just hard to be on the outside trying to figure out what might work, when there are plans in the works and you don't know what they are. Kinda makes it hard to contribute, since you don't know where to start, so you just start fresh and hope for the best.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

 

edit: Typos

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Are you suggesting that for each of the Catagories, you plan on having a team of people that are similar to reviewers to decide if something can be a Waymark?

The wording doesn't seem right. A user proposes a waymark category (like lighthouses) and invites people to help the user manage the waymark category. Once there are enough volunteer managers they can decide to bring it up for a vote. If there are enough people to say "go for it" it becomes a new category unless Groundspeak vetos it based on the criteria partially outlined above.

 

I guess maybe I could see that as a solution if there was a completed list of Catagories.

 

I don't get it. You're trying to get a new type of thing you want made into a category. You're putting the cart before the horse.

 

Maybe the whole category thing confuses you. Maybe waymark type works better as a name instead of category. Don't worry about the directory and how it is laid out. Just come up with ideas on what kinds of things you want people to go out and mark..

Share this post


Link to post
You could take applications for Waymark Managers... in the application, you ask for a maximum of five "interests" they have.

 

So, using myself as an example

 

"Canada"

"Space"

"Army"

"Waterfalls"

"Volleyball"

 

So, when you get a list of people, you could make up your team based upon these keywords.

I'll respond to this separately since I think this is an interesting idea but not exactly the way you pose it.

 

Part of the process could be that once a user decides to submit a category proposal it will alert users who have similar interests that the category needs signatures on the charter before it is formed. So if you like waterfalls and a waterfall type idea comes up, you get an email notification.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy said:

A user proposes a waymark category (like lighthouses) and invites people to help the user manage the waymark category. Once there are enough volunteer managers they can decide to bring it up for a vote. If there are enough people to say "go for it" it becomes a new category unless Groundspeak vetos it based on the criteria partially outlined above.

 

That makes more sense now that I see it worded differently.

 

So, since I wasn't getting it, I thought that you were suggesting that a team of people would be reviewing the Waymark Submissions instead of just one.

 

Since there will at some point be new Catagories and therefore you will need people to Review the submitted Waymarks that you could draw from a pool of people that have shown an interest in becoming Reviewers.

 

Hence, you would have an application that people could fill out to be Reviewers. As part of it, they would tell you the things that interest them.

 

When you have a new Catagory... you (Jeremy, or who ever approves the new Catagory) could cross referrence the list of people that want to be Reviewers.

 

So, as an example... you decide that you want one for "Van Der Graff Generators"... those electric ball things people put their hands on and it makes their hair stand up... since none of my five previously stated interests would generate a 'hit', you wouldn't ask me to help out. But if it was "Canadian Army Bases"... I score 2 out of 5, and you might ask me if I am interested in Managing this new Catagory, or at least help out.

 

This is just if you are trying to find "Reviewers" or people to help you Manage things.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

This is just if you are trying to find "Reviewers" or people to help you Manage things.

I'm not looking for people to manage the selection process for categories. I'm trying to empower people to create their own communities around interesting waymark categories.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy said:

Part of the process could be that once a user decides to submit a category proposal it will alert users who have similar interests that the category needs signatures on the charter before it is formed. So if you like waterfalls and a waterfall type idea comes up, you get an email notification

 

Hey, that's a cool idea.! I would love to get an Email notification is a new Catagory became available that I had an interest in.

 

I'm not looking for people to manage the selection process for categories. I'm trying to empower people to create their own communities around interesting waymark categories

 

Yes, I can see that being a challenge. How does one decide what is a suitable Catagory? I fear Waymarking will be bombarded with Catagory Proposals when the hierarchy decides to start allowing them... and you are right that you will need a process in place first.

 

After looking at the pinned topic, there is a lot of stuff to wade through... and then figuring out who asked first, and if if valid.. then how to vote. Tricky.

 

I'll think about it, nothing easy comes to mind

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

I think that this is starting to get too elaborate--it makes my head swim. Maybe I am not following the discussion, but here is how it seems like this is going to work...

at this point, in theory...

 

I like rocks, minerals, fossils, etc and want a category where people can waymark places to collect those things. I would not mind managing that category.

Somehow, I let my desire for that kind of category be known to others...

 

Joe Smoe likes those things too and lets everyone know that he feels the same way that I do.

 

Sally Smurf feels the same way Joe and I do.

 

Some indeterminate other amount of people also agree that they would manage such a category. (How many cooks does it take to spoil the broth?)

 

Somehow, we all agree that such a category should exist, and manage to hash out a proposal.

 

The proposal is posted somewhere, and other people chime in to tell us why our idea is wonderful or disgusting for whatever reasons they have for sayng those things.

 

After some amount of time, someone (a committee? a Groundspeak employee?) decides that enough people like our idea and it becomes "accepted"

 

The 'willing to mangage a category' folks arm wrestle or something for who gets to be the leader of the category, the other manger-types are granted the ability to do something (approve/deny some waymarks in the category?)

 

People add waymarks to the category...and...

 

Do I have it right so far?

 

If so, I already have questions and what ifs...

 

If the leader is on vacation and someone else approves something that the leader hates, they can/cannot undo the action?

 

Every action requires 100% management agreement?

 

Anyone who has a beef with not having a waymark approved has to deal with one of us? all of us? a majority of us?

 

Leadership changes happen:

If we all lose interest what happens to the category?

If the leader disappears, the others arm wrestle again to see who moves up?

 

What recourse is there if one of the managers is a pain in the neck and makes everyone angry at the rest of us?

Edited by Team Neos

Share this post


Link to post

This is just if you are trying to find "Reviewers" or people to help you Manage things.

I'm not looking for people to manage the selection process for categories. I'm trying to empower people to create their own communities around interesting waymark categories.

So let me see if I have a grasp on the concept using my own category proposal, buried somewhere in the proposal thread, as an example. I would like to waymark all the access points and parking of a major hiking trail system here in Ontario. Instead of one person managing it, each member, say six, could be responsible for a section of the trail and oversee waymarks for that section. Whenever problems arise for whatever reason then the committee would discuss it and make a decision on a solution. In the event of a member retiring, extended absences, vacations, etc. then the other members would cover him/her off for that period of time or go out and solicit for a replacement if necessary.

 

Am I on the right track? My example is rather simplistic so would be easy to do but those categories that are more complicated in their makeup and basic concept may possibly be best managed by one person only in the interests of consistency and fairness. A team responsible for managing the likes of “Landlocked Lighthouses” may never all agree on the original intent. It would then be necessary for the originator/team-leader to make the final decision which most likely is what he would have done in the first place if managing solo. In his case there could be a designated backup person for times like vacation periods. It could be a manager of a similar category who in turn would be backed up by him.

 

Cheers, Olar

Edited by Olar

Share this post


Link to post

I am confused...

 

has the process been decided upon and are category proposals being accepted? I have one i really think would be really super neato, but if they aren't being accepted yet have i wasted my breath proposing it yet, or does it give me dibs when it becomes possible to have new categories added?

 

i just want some clarity.

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps Im being thick headed at this time, but this just seems like it overcomplicates things. Instead of being a smooth process, getting waymarks approved within a category seems to be a monstrous thing. Instead of having a category manager (like the owner of a locationless cache), you will have a committee formed who will then decide these things. I was looking forward to having a couple of categories to manage, in things that interested me, but it seems like it is too easy for too many people managing a category to muddy things up and make it too tedious to jump through hoops. It seems like it will remove the fun from the game. It seems like Waymarking went from being a self sustaining process to becoming like the government, too cumbersome to function efficiently.

 

I dont think I see a reason why there needs to be a committee who oversees a category any more than I see the need for there to be more than one owner on a cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy posted:

Part of the process could be that once a user decides to submit a category proposal it will alert users who have similar interests that the category needs signatures on the charter before it is formed. So if you like waterfalls and a waterfall type idea comes up, you get an email notification.

 

I like this idea, and Blue Quasar had an excellent idea, refined by Jeremy. This might be a way to help those "low profile" members become more involved, too. They could sign on and become involved. Perhaps a random assignment of those who sign up to be on a committee for a particular category could also be considered. This would prevent a category proposer from picking only his friends to be on the committee, which would help to preclude a small group of people being able to approve dumb categories, or from taking over the majority of categories.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey guys and gals,

 

Okay…I’ve been pondering for a few days and collecting info off the forums, and here is how I think the category proposal should go.

 

First a note. When whatever proposal is initiated the website should stay in BETA and restricted to premium members, to keep from overflowing the new system, until we know it can handle it.

 

Signing up

When a user first signs into Waymarking.com (using their geocaching name) they will be prompted to select if they want to be asked to be leaders to groups. If they select yes then they will have to select a few interests off of a list. We can make up the list on these forums, easy enough. This will be the primary way of finding category leaders. A user can change these options at anytime they want

 

Category Proposal

1) When a premium member has an idea for a category they first read the rules on proposing a new category. These include all the different opinions, and regulations, etc. They then navigate to the area in the directory they believe their category should be placed. On the right of the website where it says category options there would be an option to propose a new category.

2) The member will click this link and fill out all the necessary info. (Name, description, etc.)

3) The category will be listed in a special directory named “Proposed Categories” that only premium members can access. (for now)

4) Other members will be able to browse the proposed categories, and each category will be required to go through a week of discussion. Members can post directly to the page, maybe even having different types of post. (Recommend directory path change, Recommend name change, etc.) Hopefully through this discussion the category will be molded into a nicely organized category, with rules and guidelines applicable to the individual case.

5) After the week, the post will automatically be converted so it can be voted on. Users can vote once per category and the votes are anonymous…so we don’t have any fights or anything. Voting will last a week, or for longer if the 20 votes are not met. 2/3 of the votes are needed to pass.

6) If the category passes it disappears from everyone accept the owner. It then must be approved by Groundspeak (much like geocaches) and once done, Groundspeak will post it.

7) If the category fails it disappears and there is a 3 month waiting period until it can be posted again.

8) After passing the “veto” a message will be sent to the owner of the category and they can select which interests it matches and messages are sent to the other members who have selected those interests.

9) Premium members have a week or so to sign up to be leaders. All people signing up must be accepted by the owner. There will be a limit on how many leaders (5,7,10??) and it is a first come first serve.

 

Waymark Making

1) Any member who wants to make a waymark can, and will navigate to the category and select to make one

2) After they have filled out anything and have submitted the proposal, it gets sent to a leader.

3) Waymarks will be sent in order. Say there are 5 leaders. The first proposal will be sent to leader 1, then 2, 3 and so on, until it gets to 5 and then it loops. If a leader knows they will be gone for awhile they can sign into Waymarking.com and click an option, I will be gone. They are automatically skipped in the loop, until they sign back in and click “I’m back.” If a leader has been inactive for more then a week they are skipped too.

4) If for some reason all leaders are “out of the loop” the waymark proposal is sent to Groundspeak or a geocaching reviewer or a new Waymarking reviewer (that’s up to you Groundspeak.) Along with it an alert about the problem. The reviewer can look into it and fix the problem.

5) If a user knows they can no longer hold up their responsibilities as a leader they can send a message to the creator and they can find a replacement, if need be.

 

Well, I hope that explains it well enough. Let me know what you think. I will make changes as need be…if it is totally out of the question, let me know!! Thanks guys.

 

Happy caching….and marking!!

Robbie, Team Robrad

Edited by Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post

Ithink that we DO need some controlling filter of types of categories and sub-categories. Also with my experience working with Yahoo Groups I would strongly recommend that a catagory have a manager and a staff to help out. Over time there is a need for other opinions in running these things. I would also suggest that there be a controlled access of a message board for the managers and staff to have discusions on running the categories.

And I want to give a special thanks to Jeremy and the Geocache.com staff for all of your support over the years. :laughing:

 

Jim

Edited by jimmonty

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me, after creating a category, placing several waymarks and reading a number of the transferred locationless caches, that the proposal review committee, or whatever the process ends up with, needs to also review the waymark creation and logging requirements proposed for a new category in addition to just establishing the appropriateness of the category itself.

 

In fact it might be a good idea to have some guidelines in place that explain the process and have some suggestions as to what is appropriate or not.

 

The locationless cache was different in that there was only a waymark equivalent and no logging equivalent. This has obviously caused some confusion in the transition as some of the wording in the instructions for placing waymarks and instructions for logging waymarks don't make a lot of sense. For example giving no instructions for placing waymarks and having a bunch of rules about what types of category are and aren't allowed in the logging section doesn't fit with the new Waymarking concept (unless my understanding is totally out of sync).

 

It also makes it difficult when on the road and you spot something in a category of interest knowing what you have to do to be able to waymark it when you get back. Will I need a picture, other information etc etc.

 

There are a number of categories already created that need some attention to make them consistent with the new concept. I hope that a process gets put in place to get these cleaned up before it gets out of control.

Share this post


Link to post

Good Comments Hard Oiler. Agreed that there needs to be rules put forth in the category for making waymarks and logging waymarks. For example, will you need a photo with your GPS when making a waymark for 'x' category? What about logging that waymark? I think rules like this should be put in the category description, so it is universal among all the waypoints in that category.

 

There should be basic submission rules that you read before submitting a category. The creator will decide what is best for this category and it will be confirmed or changed in the discussion phase.

 

I believe that existing categories should be reviewed by Groundspeak before they open the gate on new ones. And maybe even "test" out the Creating categories system before starting. How, not sure. Also, keep it to premium members for a month or so, just to make sure the big kinks are sorted out. This is not because we are special, just because there are fewer, and thus less load.

 

Adding all this to my previous post.

-Robbie

Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post
Part of the process could be that once a user decides to submit a category proposal it will alert users who have similar interests that the category needs signatures on the charter before it is formed. So if you like waterfalls and a waterfall type idea comes up, you get an email notification.

Jeremy (or anyone else qualified to answer)

 

I think this sounds good, but I would like to know more about how it would actually function with similar ideas that have different words. Let me give an example:

 

I proposed the category "fossil collecting sites" back when you first opened up the second forum saying "this is the place where categories will be accepted when we are ready" at that time you suggested that folks should revise their proposals as they got responses.

 

Someone else suggested that rocks and minerals would be good too. So I changed my post to add those ideas (It was a good suggestion). Not long after that, the someone else posted their own proposal for rock and minerals.

 

Much later, someone else suggested having a category for places to find gemstones (gemstones are really just minerals that have some value to people for their rarity or beauty--so those two are the same thing, really). By this point, you had already started discussing having groups of people manage a category, which made me realize that ...

 

If I read what you are saying lately correctly, it would be your idea that IDEALLY the three of us would co-lead one category that included these three related ideas.

 

My question is--Will the Waymarking site be able to recognize the need to group our three suggestions together?

 

How will that happen? Boolean operators only go so far...

And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

Share this post


Link to post
Jeremy (or anyone else qualified to answer)

 

That would not be me...but I will put in my 2 cents worth.

 

Will the Waymarking site be able to recognize the need to group our three suggestions together?

 

I would hope that through the discussion phase people would recognize that a new category or existing category could accommodate an idea and would bring it up. For instance, let’s say you got your fossil category already made...all is well. You are looking around the new proposals and see the gemstone thing. You comment and say you recommend it gets put into yours...and if the “proposer” is okay with it, you do so.

 

And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

 

Hopefully their category will not pass the voting stage or veto stage. But, just like a democracy, it doesn't always work...and in that case we might just have to put up with it.

 

Thoughts??

 

-Robbie

Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post
And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

How about the three of you forming a group to co-manage a category called, for arguments sake, "Rockology" and then each member of the group creates a sub-category of their own specialty. Team member 1 - "fossils", 2 - "minerals" and 3 - "gemstones".

So together you will all be equally responsible for the main category and also be official backups/advisors/assistants for each other on the individual subs.

 

Olar

Share this post


Link to post
And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

How about the three of you forming a group to co-manage a category called, for arguments sake, "Rockology" and then each member of the group creates a sub-category of their own specialty. Team member 1 - "fossils", 2 - "minerals" and 3 - "gemstones".

So together you will all be equally responsible for the main category and also be official backups/advisors/assistants for each other on the individual subs.

 

Olar

Sounds sensible...but it doesn't sound like what Jeremy was proposing most recently See this part of the thread

 

What you suggest, and Team Robard as well, works if the category process goes the way Jeremy originally suggested---but his more recent posts make it sound like he is considering some automated process to create Waymarking management teams (I believe that he referred to them as "guilds"). He really doesn't say how those teams would be put in touch with each other, and I am just trying to get more information on that process.

 

I liked the simpler version that appears in the FACS for Waymarking, but apparently some folks feel that a more complicated process is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
I proposed the category "fossil collecting sites" back when you first opened up the second forum saying "this is the place where categories will be accepted when we are ready" at that time you suggested that folks should revise their proposals as they got responses.

 

Someone else suggested that rocks and minerals would be good too. So I changed my post to add those ideas (It was a good suggestion). Not long after that, the someone else posted their own proposal for rock and minerals.

 

Much later, someone else suggested having a category for places to find gemstones (gemstones are really just minerals that have some value to people for their rarity or beauty--so those two are the same thing, really). By this point, you had already started discussing having groups of people manage a category, which made me realize that ...

 

How will that happen? Boolean operators only go so far...

And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

I would think that the fossils would get a subcategory of geology, as would minerals, and gemstones. Each with their own subcategory and responsible parties. I think that lumping all these ideas into one while it sounds like a possibly OK idea I think that down the road we would regret it.

 

personally i would not want to be lumped with fossils :lol: but if it happens i won't get angry and pout, I just want to be involved in that category as a leader.

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps instead of a 2/3 vote there can just be a minimum number of yes votes required. I don't really know what forum traffic is like, but if a suggested category gets 20, 50, 100 approvals, whatever the number may be, isn't that enough to suggest that it's wanted, rather than, as suggested above, people voting against a category because they don't like the person placing it. Of course if you want to hold veto power, you can use that in the face of several people voicing an objection to a particular suggestion. But the 2/3 approval (or even 50%+1) seems stiff, especially since it's typically the same people in the forums, and it's their biases the new submitter is up against. A standard minimum may make it more practical to get a new category published.

I like the idea of having a minimum number of Yes votes. (I suggest 20) It could be like a minimum number of signatures to get your name on a political ballet. It would show that there would be enough interest in the category to make it viable. As with the discussion threads in the forums, if you are not interested in the topic, don't post.

 

I would suggest that new categories are given a tentative approval. Final approval would come after a minimum number of waypoints are created in the category therefore showing it is a viable category. (maybe 5)

 

Managing categories should be done both by those who proposed the category and others who have interest in the category. I like the idea of listing interests to show what areas you'd be willing to manage. In addition to the category's proposer, Groundspeak could assign 2 volunteers at the start from the interest list. Then, say 1-2 months later, pick 2 more from those who have posted waymarks in that category. (If they too have expressed an interest.)

 

Clearly the taxonomy needs to be controlled by Groundspeak. The policing of overlapping categories needs to be in the hands of an unbiased Groundspeak.

 

Out of time, will comment more later.

 

Loch Cache

Share this post


Link to post
I proposed the category "fossil collecting sites" back when you first opened up the second forum saying "this is the place where categories will be accepted when we are ready" at that time you suggested that folks should revise their proposals as they got responses.

 

Someone else suggested that rocks and minerals would be good too. So I changed my post to add those ideas (It was a good suggestion). Not long after that, the someone else posted their own proposal for rock and minerals.

 

Much later, someone else suggested having a category for places to find gemstones (gemstones are really just minerals that have some value to people for their rarity or beauty--so those two are the same thing, really). By this point, you had already started discussing having groups of people manage a category, which made me realize that ...

 

How will that happen? Boolean operators only go so far...

And what do you envision if the people don't want to "merge" categories--say for instance that the gemstone fellow wouldn't mind minerals but isn't interested in being lumped in with fossils?

I would think that the fossils would get a subcategory of geology, as would minerals, and gemstones. Each with their own subcategory and responsible parties. I think that lumping all these ideas into one while it sounds like a possibly OK idea I think that down the road we would regret it.

 

personally i would not want to be lumped with fossils :laughing: but if it happens i won't get angry and pout, I just want to be involved in that category as a leader.

You make a very valid point..but are we looking at it right? Is this a problem in general (I was just using our specific suggestions as an example, after all).

 

There are several ways to look at this, and the categories do cross---After all, take the example of opalized wood, which is a gemstone fossil!--- but it strikes me that lots of other possible waymarks out there will suffer from the same problem of where to draw the line.

 

Would we have three related but separate categories--"places to collect rocks", "places to collect minerals", and "places to collect fossils"-- that could potentially be cross-posted by people forming waymarks?

 

Or would they be lumped into one category "places to collect rocks, minerals, and fossils" managed by a team of people interested in rocks, minerals, or fossils, that has waymarks that might include more than one of the types of collectible (say rocks and minerals)--because they are all the result of geologic processes?

 

My question is how/who would make the decision of what entails a category. Will the software on the forums try to connect similar categories, or will it be the responsibility of the people proposing categories?

 

Will having to find multiple people to manage a category create lots of these kinds of dilemmas?

 

I think that these are the kinds of questions that will help get this process refined. Am I thinking wrong about this somehow?

Share this post


Link to post

I think you bring legitimate concerns.

 

i think that all are interesting and would help manage all of them as part of a group, or solo if noone else wanted to(that is not the case here)

 

I think that sub categories should be specific with a more general category, that is something that all the different groups of people will have to hash out during the category submittal process.

 

Geology

>Gemstones

>Minerals

>Fossils/Petrified Wood

 

This sort of thing will make it easier for people to find what they want to search for. A lump category would require opening every point and reading info on it. This would be like having attributes be searchable for caches. :laughing:

 

This will be something that will need to be monitored for submissions that have overlapping interest but not nessicarily overlaping topics, just VERY CLOSELY related.

 

Bruised ego's will occur and feeling may be hurt, but if we let everybody in on the multiple managers whatever thing that has a sub category that is related then i think it will not be a big problem.

 

must stop... rambling...

Share this post


Link to post
What you suggest, and Team Robard as well, works if the category process goes the way Jeremy originally suggested---but his more recent posts make it sound like he is considering some automated process to create Waymarking management teams (I believe that he referred to them as "guilds").  He really doesn't say how those teams would be put in touch with each other, and I am just trying to get more information on that process. 

I didn't write guilds, I wrote groups that were based on the concept of guilds (like World of Warcraft). Please don't paraphrase if you don't look up the text that is readily available in this thread. It's even on this page - just scroll up and read it.

 

(edit: sorry to seem like I'm lecturing, but to have a full conversation you really need to read my posts. This is still an ongoing discussion and nothing is written in stone)

 

Keep in mind that this is an ongoing discussion and all the answers haven't been worked out. I'd prefer instead of things like "Jeremy didn't say how x y z is going to work" you say "I'm not sure if this was brought up but I think that x y and z could (or should) work this way."

 

I'd like to get back to your point - that the automation of the process is a Bad Thing. Defined above, a person interested in a category creates that category proposal and people who are interested can ask to be one of the group members to manage it. After a quorum is complete (let's say, for simplicity, it is 5 managers) the group leader can decide when to bring it up for a vote of support. If there is enough support it goes to a Groundspeak employee who ignores it, accepts it with comments, or denies it with comments. From there it either goes back to the drawing board or becomes an official category.

 

Before you express the disadvantages of the above paragraph (and the general concept), you must respond to the issue of category management, review and publishing of new waymarks. In a one-manager situation how would this work if the user stopped reviewing listings for that category? Then explain why group management of a category is a Bad Thing.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
If I read what you are saying lately correctly, it would be your idea that IDEALLY the three of us would co-lead one category that included these three related ideas.

Not necessarily. There seems to be a false assumption that categories will have to be exclusive. It is inevitable that there will be some overlapping between categories. I am hopeful that by going through a more formalized process that we can minimize these issues by discussing categories before making them available. Thus the creation of this thread.

 

My question is--Will the Waymarking site be able to recognize the need to group our three suggestions together?

 

No. The Waymarking site is just a simple machine and won't be able to recognize a fossil from a gemstone. The discussion here is an attempt to make logical groupings of waymark categories so there is minimal overlap.

 

If there are overreaching categories (inevitible - in fact military installations is extremely broad and is already a category). When this happens and someone wants to drill down further there are two ways to go. First, create additional variables (a rarely discussed feature) for filtering within a category, or creating a new category that is unique from the original. As we start linking waymarks to each other (like a coffee shop + wifi hotspot) it won't be a huge deal to point out the same thing twice - it'll just be additional information about a location for the user to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Defined above, a person interested in a category creates that category proposal and people who are interested can ask to be one of the group members to manage it. After a quorum is complete (let's say, for simplicity, it is 5 managers)  the group leader can decide when to bring it up for a vote of support. If there is enough support it goes to a Groundspeak employee who ignores it, accepts it with comments, or denies it with comments. From there it either goes back to the drawing board or becomes an official category.

Sounds like you are saying to have the group leader "selection" before the proposal goes up for discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I like this idea...it makes more sense, because you will know you have support before even continuing. Hopefully this would make categories even better run, and make Groundspeak official's jobs easier.

 

Changing my big post to show this change.

 

-Robbie

Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...