Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Jeremy

Creating New Waymark Categories

Recommended Posts

At first, it was said no categories were being accepted, but feel free to propose them and flesh them out. Which is why I proposed some categories. Then it was said dont even bother trying to flesh them out, so I stopped. I dont know about anyone else's reasons.

 

Now Im just chomping at the bit to have more categories. After going to a site to get coordinates for an earthcache, and scaring badly myself on that road, I want to hunt something tame for awhile. (I hate heights, and narrow roads on the edge of cliffs.)

Share this post


Link to post

I saw it as an opportunity for people to make suggestions and provide some preliminary ideas on how these suggestions would all fit together. Also, when all the transfering is done, then you could start grouping suggestions together and start adding categories starting with the most popular. I think that the suggestions show that there are some hot categories, like historical signs, probably grouped/filterable by state. It also is a way to start thinking of how to manage these categories. I, for one, would love to volunteer for the Massachusetts signs, maybe volunteer for several New England states if they aren't taken, but I don't think that I would have the time to manage the whole category (I suspect that this will be a busy one).

 

I like the 'committee' approach. A committee will help keep a category consistent throughout and better anticipate and deal with problems. I cringe at the suggestion about giving the committee the ability to overthrow the category manager. I would hope that serious discussion happens before then, and should involve Groundspeak (or designated volunteer) to mediate.

Share this post


Link to post

Where do these fit?

 

1. Factory Tours

2. Zoos

3. Bookcrossing Zones

4. Drive-In Movie Theaters

5. Amusement Parks

6. Berry picking locations

 

1. Factory tours are a part of a business and serve a commercial purpose even if they are free. - Business

 

2. Zoos, for the most part are not-for-profit public places - Place

 

3. Bookcrossing Zones may be within a buisness but are not there for the purpose of making that business money - Place

 

4. Drive in movie theaters are a business that charge money for entrence - Business

 

5. Amusement parks are present to make a profit - Buisness

 

6. Berry picking locations are currently in the hunting gathering category wich I think is appropriate. Perhaps a "Pay for Pick" subcategory within berrypicking, I don't think this one will be big enough to raise any problems, there are, to my knowlege, no "Berry Baron" type franchises. - Place

Share this post


Link to post
People, Places, Things, Businesses

This is the point I was trying to make to Jeremy (in another thread) about the evils of flexibility.

 

This is the type of chaos that will result if Groundspeak doesn't maintain some strict control over the entire category system (ensuring that it's growth is logical and well-thought out.)

We do have strict control over the taxonomy of the site. The individual waymark categories, however, are managed by a group (or for now, an individual). Where they go and how it is organized is entirely up to Groundspeak. As the number of waymark categories grow the more branched the structure will be.

 

It does, however, make sense in the beginning to reduce the number of clicks to reach a category, so the structure is not very deep now.

Share this post


Link to post
Categories should be taken out of the hands of the userbase, and maintained by Groundspeak and their network of approvers/reviewers.

No thanks. Waymarking is the solution to a lot of the stresses and challenges previously faced by the Groundspeak volunteer group when dealing with locationless caches and virtual caches. As a group the volunteers want no further part of the process in any official capacity. Like me for instance, I just want to manage the four categories that I hand-picked because they are interesting to me. If I'm told that I need to have a hand in managing Waymarking on a larger scale, I'd probably quit. Since I know that Groundspeak will *not* be asking that of me, I can instead enthusiastically support Waymarking and offer suggestions for its improvement and success, as an individual player. My vote shouldn't count anymore than anyone else's.

 

The opportunity for democratic development and governance within the Waymarking community is, to me, one of its biggest selling points. It's as exciting a time as geocaching was in late 2000-early 2001. Several hundred forum threads about the cache review process and the actions of the centralized volunteer cache reviewer group suggest that a different approach is worth trying out.

Share this post


Link to post
Several hundred forum threads about the cache review process and the actions of the centralized volunteer cache reviewer group suggest that a different approach is worth trying out

 

Here Here!

 

I hope that an alternative approach works here that removes that unpleasant aspect for those that 'review' Geocaches.

 

I've heard enough 'reviewer horror stories' to know that this Waymarking idea is needed.

 

Oh.... I'm not suggesting that I'm a 'reviewer'.. but I have heard enough to know how they feel.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Reminds me a lot of trying to buy a gun. It could take weeks to get cleared for a Waymarking Category. The more I hear about these nonsense rules the more I dread Waymarking.

 

From what I have heard you dont get dibs on the Categories that YOU thought of and proposed. It seems that just any ordinary person can say hmmm I believe that I will publish this category, cause I like it. Even though I may have proposed the category because its something I thought of. I dont think of good ideas for someone else's sake!

Share this post


Link to post
I dont think of good ideas for someone else's sake!

I would only propose a category that I thought was good for someone else. Many someone elses, actually.

 

In Waymarking, category is king because a single category has the potential (note the use of the word potential) to impact a very large audience. Ultimately, the success of a category will be determined by how many other people think it's a good idea, and how well the idea can be presented and managed.

 

I'm not saying that consideration shouldn't be made for the first person to come up with an idea, but I think that 'thought of it first' isn't the same as 'best and only to manage it'.

 

edit: housecleaning

Edited by cache_test_dummies

Share this post


Link to post
I dont think of good ideas for someone else's sake!

You wouldn't be a very good category manager then. If anything you're supporting the process of proposing new categories.

Share this post


Link to post

A couple of Categories I would like to propose are

* Waterfalls

* Back Country Huts and Lodges (that require a hike into)

* Gold Digging sites

* Caves

* Archeological Sites

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
A couple of Categories I would like to propose are

* Waterfalls

* Back Country Huts and Lodges (that require a hike into)

* Gold Digging sites

* Caves

* Archeological Sites

 

  :)

I would caution on the caves.. Those that are public and free shouldn't be a problem, but those that are backcountry are sometimes off limits because of the bat populations. Having a bunch of weekend warriors tromping through backwoods caves wouldn't be a good idea..

Share this post


Link to post

I aint listing my GOLD bearing site.

 

Now I have been working on a Real Treasure Hunt adventure with it though.

A type of EVENT that would yield real treasure,but it takes a little work and prep.

 

*caves are touchy places here as well as most states.

 

I propose ...............Load Bearing..........that is any type of Mineral site.

But you have to show the example of the mineral.

1.Gold

2.Silver

3.Copper

4.Antimony

5.Bitmous

6.Lead

ect,there is a long list of them.

Share this post


Link to post

Let me see if I can steer this convo back on course... (please no more category proposals)

 

We're moving away from the newsgroup-style voting system and toward a group-based system now. Imagine a group of like minded folks cooperatively managing a single category...

 

What sort of issues come to mind? What sort of group management features would you be interested in?

 

Without getting into too much detail, the basic hierarchy planned will be one leader (whoever proposes the cat idea), some officers to help manage, and group members to add input.

 

Talk amongst yourselves :cry:

Share this post


Link to post

The worst is the "traitor" scenario.

 

Everything's going fine and then someone with high rank goes crazy because of something that happens in the group or whatever and just destroys all the work of the rest by using the power given to disrupt/destroy.

 

Here, that would essentially equate to an "officer" using some power available to "officers" (like archival of waypoints in the category) to empty the category and changing the description of the category to "this category's manager is a dooty-head" before being banned or leaving. It's not impossible to undo, but it is a headache.

 

There's also the "I don't like you anymore" scenario.

 

The category manager has reason (good or not) to toss someone from the group (dunno what rules will be in place there) and in the process makes an enemy or doesn't get his way because of the rules and now has a spiteful person in his ranks (see traitor scenario above for how that finishes out).

 

Final one I can think of is the "No wonder, that group hates me" scenario.

 

The entire group managing a category are buddies and an outsider has a legitimate waymark to claim there. For whatever reason, the group and outsider are at odds and it plays out as the waymark is continually stone-walled (if it's a Stone Wall waymark...that'd be hilarious) for seemingly dubious reasons. Without some sort of arbitration system, it's all against one and can lead to some really hairy situations (especially if outsider is part of a different group that's managing other categories).

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, now a few solutions for these scenarios:

 

There should be checks/balances. A category owner _can_ do anything without need to consult the group. He _shouldn't_ do whatever he wants without the group's consent, because the group gets the ability to "no confidence" vote the owner if they feel the need and replace him with anyone in the group (officer or regular). If any group member gets out of line ("traitor") then the category owner can impose a 48 hour holding period where that person's ability to participate in the group is disabled and at the same time, Groundspeak is notified of the fact that this holding period was initiated (like an SBA, it's not like these will get wielded unless really necessary because it auto-involves Groundspeak).

 

So:

 

Owner - has all power but is kept in line by the ability to lose it if X% of the group no-confidences him.

 

Officer - has all the same abilities as the Owner except for the "holding period" ability.

 

Group Member - has certain waymark level controls and enough group members in agreement can perform the duties of a single officer

 

Outsider - can ask for arbitration from (the community, Groundspeak, council of elders...something) for getting a waymark listed

Share this post


Link to post
Let me see if I can steer this convo back on course... (please no more category proposals)

 

We're moving away from the newsgroup-style voting system and toward a group-based system now. Imagine a group of like minded folks cooperatively managing a single category...

 

What sort of issues come to mind? What sort of group management features would you be interested in?

 

Without getting into too much detail, the basic hierarchy planned will be one leader (whoever proposes the cat idea), some officers to help manage, and group members to add input.

 

Talk amongst yourselves  :ph34r:

 

Many of these questions may already have answers--and just need tweaking to fit the particular functions of Waymarking. --This system isn't innovative and already has a working model to draw from--It is nothing more than the setup already in place in two Groundspeak locations, with some minor twists.

 

Using geocaching as one preexisting model, the "leader" who proposes the category, is essentially the cache reviewer for an area; the "officers" are the same as the reviewers who aren't assigned to that area, but who have the power to step in and assist in the area when needed; and "group members" equate with geocachers, who add input whenever possible.

If that model doesn't appeal to you, you could think of Waymarking like a Groundspeak forum. Then the Waymarking leader is similar to the forum moderator for a particular forum, the officers are like moderators from other forums, and the group members would be like GC members who happen to respond to that forum.

 

I point all that out not to criticize, but merely to suggest that we have already seen similar models--so we should have some idea how group dynamics will play into our new working model. I like the KISS method of development--if we already have a similar model, can it be tweaked to fit our new needs, or does it truly need a complete overhaul of the structure?

I personally need to see the big picture and have to first know the purpose of a structure before I can suggest specific features to accomplish that purpose.

 

That said, my starting question would be, "What is the purpose of having a group to manage the category?"

The management features might be different if the greatest need is to assure that once a category is put in place it will remain available "forever" than if the primary purpose is to assure that many managers are available at any given time to provide customer service.

 

If categories will come and go at the whim of fancy, no new features are needed--just allow someone to purpose a category, give them the tools to set it up how they please, and let them go to it. As simple as that sounds, it strikes me that the decision has already been made to avoid that scenario in spite of having used just that model to create the alpha phase of Waymarking. (I personally think that group dynamics create new problems even while solving some of the problems of individual management--but I have already been criticized for not embracing the group-managed model, so I'll stick to trying to suggest ideas to help create that group management model).

 

For categories that are meant to last indefinitely, we need different features and safeguards than if the category only has to last as long as a particular group wants to manage the category.

In the case where we want categories to remain forever, we might be able use a set-up very similar to the ones in place already on the geocaching model. For instance, categories could go up for adoption if needed so that they wouldn't go unattended. Just like with geocaching, if the leader wasn't available, the managers could fill in to take care of business (like reviewers from others areas will do for each other on geocaches).

 

I don't have enough information to imagine the kinds of management tools that are needed--some input from current geocaching reviewers would be helpful to me. What is missing from gc that would be needed to manage permanent waymarks?

If the category is never supposed to disappear, then at the very least, the category should NOT be able to be deleted by either the group or any combination of individual members of the group. We would need the same type of ability for multiple people to "see and control" the category as already exists for geocaching, I think--but since I don't really understand how that works I am just guessing.

 

Some questions that occur to me:

Do we want categories to remain permanently available?

Is the category owner the true owner with ultimate veto power--or just the leader of the group, the person with ultimate responsibility?

Is the first person to suggest the category automatically the owner, or do they need some qualification?

 

Group dynamics play a part in effort managed by groups--and will affect which kinds of tools we need.

Do we need to protect the category from bad group dynamics?

Who will arbitrate for the group if they argue and can't agree after trying to reach an argreement?

What will happen if the group breaks down?

Who will be responsible for the category if everyone loses interest?

Will categories be temporarily archived until new management groups can be found?

 

On the other hand, if the main reason for having groups manage a category is to provide maximum customer service and try to make sure that someone is always around to make a decision or fix a problem, we would need to provide true managerial powers to more individuals.

 

That bring up different questions that might need different features for manager teams:

Would the category owner need some type of veto power?

Does the geocaching model work here? Again, what tools are missing (from the current geocacing reviewer point of view)?

Will one member be able to undo what another has done?

I see the potential for trouble unless some one person has ultimate responsibility, but maybe I have limited vision. My personal philosphy is that groups must have either a leader (shepherd) or a manager (boss)--but that too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

 

 

 

[

Edited by Team Neos

Share this post


Link to post

If I go to college and get a law degree and one in accounting and a few rocket science credits I might have a clue what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
If I go to college and get a law degree and one in accounting and a few rocket science credits I might have a clue what you're talking about.

I assumed that last message was for me and started to get offended--then I copied what I had written into the word processor and checked it out...In addition to having a few spelling and grammar errors, it had a 12th grade reading level and only had a reading-ease score of 41%. Whew! Sorry! I went back and edited it to try to make it more reader-friendly. Thanks for the constructive criticism.

Edited by Team Neos

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for your thoughtful response. You and Ju66l3r brought up some good questions so let me take some of yours and respond to them as best I can...

 

Do we want categories to remain permanently available?

 

Of course the ultimate goal is the integrity of the directory, so having categories be established and then maintained in the long-term is important. But if it's being mismanaged or just isn't interesting it should not be tenured. The upgrade/downgrade feature is meant to keep this in check (too many downgrades and regular users will no longer see it).

 

Is the category owner the true owner with ultimate veto power--or just the leader of the group, the person with ultimate responsibility?

 

"Ultimate Responsibility" rests with the group as a whole. If the category fails, the group fails. One of the things that need discussed here is just what powers the leader can wield. I imagine the leader will have the power to make some decisions unilaterally but not have carte blanche to make changes on her whim. We need certain checks and balances in place to keep a despotic leader from dragging down the group.

 

Is the first person to suggest the category automatically the owner, or do they need some qualification?

 

Yes. But change "owner" to "group leader". They need to be a Premium Member.

 

Do we need to protect the category from bad group dynamics?

 

Absolutely, we do. We will build in a feature that allows, with the proper agreements, for a member to be booted from the group. One great challenge will be deciding how a leader can be unseated. Should that be a group-wide decision? Should just the officers be allowed to vote on such a thing? Who has the permissions to start that process in motion?

 

Who will arbitrate for the group if they argue and can't agree after trying to reach an argreement?

 

Again, checks and balances. The leader will have the most power, but the officers collectively wield more. There MUST be a way to overrule a leader but it should be really difficult to do so.

 

What will happen if the group breaks down?

 

If the group disbands the category will be de-listed (but still available if you know the path). We'll try to create enough conflict resolution tools to prevent a group from reaching this point. At some point this is inevitable, however.

 

Who will be responsible for the category if everyone loses interest?

Will categories be temporarily archived until new management groups can be found?

 

It's doubtful the entire group will lose interest, but if that occurs it will remain in the archives and can be reassigned to a new group.

 

I'll leave you with a couple questions of my own:

 

Of the leader, officers, and basic members, who can suggest a member be dismissed and what kind of member support (how many) is needed for the action to be carried out?

 

When a disagreement arises regarding a waymark that has been submitted, how is this disagreement resolved?

 

I really appreciate the suggestions, everyone. :D

Share this post


Link to post

OpinioNate: Are you suggesting that the Group idea has been approved and will be utilized? As far as I know, it was just a suggestion, borne from a suggestion.

 

I like the idea very much, I just didn't know that it had been accepted.

 

As for you questions back to the thread.

 

Of the leader, officers, and basic members, who can suggest a member be dismissed and what kind of member support (how many) is needed for the action to be carried out?

 

Members should not be dismissable... since I equate Members with Waymark Visitors. But I assume you are referring to the group dynamic itself.

 

Leader - Dismissed by non-confidence motion, and supported by 2/3rd of the management group. Must be reported to Groundpeak.

 

Officer - Dismissed by Leader, if the Leader receives 2/3 support from the other officers. Leader should be non-partisan in this, unless required to be the deciding vote. Must be reported to Groundspeak.

 

As for the other question,

 

When a disagreement arises regarding a waymark that has been submitted, how is this disagreement resolved?

 

I would say that the Leader suggests a solution, then calls a vote. Leader gets 2 votes. Straight up 50-50... in the event of a tie, Leader makes the final decision.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Of the leader, officers, and basic members, who can suggest a member be dismissed and what kind of member support (how many) is needed for the action to be carried out?

 

When a disagreement arises regarding a waymark that has been submitted, how is this disagreement resolved?

 

#1: I think anyone should be able to suggest that a member be dismissed; however, I think only the leader and officers should have the actual power to bring a dismissal action against a member. Once an action is started, I believe a large majority - 75% or higher - should have to vote for dismissal.

There would quite likely be many complaints or problems regarding a member before that member reaches a point where someone wants them dismissed. There would also probably be a lot of discussion among the leader and officers, as well as the other members, before this occurs. Thus, as long as any member has shown enough interest to partake in such discussions, they should be able to suggest dismissal. But since this would be such a drastic step, I think only the leader or officers should be able to actually commence such an action, and I would hope only after some serious discussion among themselves. The high percentage in favor of dismissal is to prevent a small group from "lynching" another member.

 

#2: Since this is not nearly as serious an issue, I think the leader and officers should resolve disagreements about a submitted waymark. I presume you are talking about disagreements whether to accept certain items, or if the category is appropriate for a submitted waymark.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, we're fairly certain the Groups idea will be implemented, though we've been quiet on the specifics since many of it has yet to be decided. This has been to avoid the "But you said...!" forum threads.

 

I think we can all agree that a huge majority should be involved in the ousting of a member. As you pointed out, a small group of folks could easily 'lynch' a perfectly innocent member for any perceived infraction. How does this sound?

  • The leader can boot a regular member without oversight, though he is subject to recrimination from his officers and risks ousting if he abuses this power.
     
  • An officer can call a vote amongst the other officers and leader in order to boot a regular member or officer. A 2/3 majority is required for the motion to be carried.
     
  • To boot an officer a 2/3 majority is required amongst the officers and leader.
     
  • To boot the leader a unanimous officer vote is required.
     
  • A regular member can appeal to the officers of a group regarding the dismissal of a member but has no direct powers.

 

Waymark disputes are, indeed, less likely to cause unrest but an appeal process needs to be considered. Presumably, and from time to time, the officers of a group will have differing opinions on the suitability of a particular waymark submission and should have a way of formally voicing his or her concerns.

 

My idea is to have a "contest" (not the game sort, but the complain sort) feature that allows an officer to flag a waymark that has already been approved by the leader or another officer. The officer contests the waymark, is given a chance to detail his reasons, and the waymark enters a 'pending' queue for re-review. The Group officers, including the leader, will then review the comments made by the contestor and vote yay or nay. A 2/3 majority in the negative is required for the waymark to be removed from the category.

Share this post


Link to post
The leader can boot a regular member without oversight, though he is subject to recrimination from his officers and risks ousting if he abuses this power.

 

An officer can call a vote amongst the other officers and leader in order to boot a regular member or officer. A 2/3 majority is required for the motion to be carried.

 

To boot an officer a 2/3 majority is required amongst the officers and leader.

 

To boot the leader a unanimous officer vote is required.

 

A regular member can appeal to the officers of a group regarding the dismissal of a member but has no direct powers.

 

I like most of it. I don't like giving the leader the power to boot a regular member without any oversight - too much power, IMHO. Even if he's recriminated by his officers, that doesn't reinstate the member, and the leader can't be booted without a unanimous vote. I would also still go with the 75% level in each instance you use 2/3. But I do tend to err on the side of caution. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

In order to protect against wild oustings and retributions and the like (in other words to help prevent or at least slow the idea of a "coup" within the group), I think two limits should be placed on removal voting procedures:

 

1) A minimum group size limit. Below that limit and the category goes to the equivalent of "temporarily unavailable" with something like a grace period for the first drop below the size limit. If it takes 5 total members of any rank to make a group, then when a group removes the 5th member, they have X days to add a new fifth member or their category is put on hold by the software. They then have Y days to finally add a new member before the category is put up for adoption by a new group of at least 5 people. This way even a medium-sized voting bloc can't eliminate a rising dissent and shrink the group to the Leader and 2 friends as Officers in order to maintain their particular vision after a particularly ugly complaint from within.

 

2) A time limit between oustings. Simply a "flood control" so that again, a Leader can't make his friends Officers and then wipe out the remaining non-Officer members before they even log into the site again in order to challenge/complain about his reign.

 

On an independent point about groups...I'm not sure how I see all of this communication happening. The very nature of these groups suggests that I may be a member/officer/leader of multiple groups that need my attention. Unfortunately, the "board" of these things isn't going to necessarily be so common between groups and therefore each will need me to be involved independent of the others...that is, I can't just attend a weekly online chat session or something where we go through all of my groups on a single agenda. That's going to seriously limit the amount of attention or the number of boards that I can be involved with at any one time. With each having its own *potential* drama at any given time...I could see this going crazy really fast (especially in the early establishment periods).

 

It just seems like unless there's a *really* convenient way for groups to deal with issues as they arise from time-to-time, people may not get involved in many different groups and good ideas will have a harder time disseminating amongst the groups because of the higher isolation between groups that will arise.

 

That's a bit "doomsday"ish, of course, and I'm not suggesting that's the logical end of the system, but something to be aware of moving forward with these "groups". Hopefully it will be rather easy and people won't feel it's overly time-consuming to be involved in multiple groups.

 

Basically, imagine the cache reviewers...now imagine they also have to answer to more than Groundspeak/Hydee and explain themselves or force losing their area "leadership" because they had a hard time communicating with all of the decision makers. They'd never want to do more than a few thousand square acres.. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
To boot the leader a unanimous officer vote is required.

 

There is definitely a problem with this one... And since Jeremy is virtual bulletproof, I'll use him as the example

 

Jermey sets up his group... and includes six officers, to help with his Berry Picking catagory.

 

One day, Jeremy snaps and after some time the officers start talking about ousting him.

 

If Jeremy was smart, he would have included Hydee or Bootron or OpinioNate in his group... thus assuring that they will never get unanimous ejection results.

 

Even as I type this, there has been decision on how the management group will be formed, who assigns people to the Officer position, how many Officers are needed.

 

Perhaps before we start talking about dealing with the problems, let's figure out how to set up the Group in the first place.

 

Also... what exactly is a "Member"? Is that someone that owns a Waymark? Or is it something else?

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Communication would be a problem with heavily used categories. Altho I like Waymarking, Im not sure that this system will encourage me to be involved in the categories. Time constraints and the apparent increasingly difficult involvement in managing categories would deter me from wanting to manage any categories. Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Edited and placed in I believe the correct Place

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

If Jeremy was smart, he would have included Hydee or Bootron or OpinioNate in his group... thus assuring that they will never get unanimous ejection results.

 

You're assuming I and the others would put up with Jeremy's renegade behavior, just because he's the boss. If he got really out of control it's likely his "insurance" would turn against him as well. In any case, if a leader is totally out of control Groundspeak has the ability to step in and make hard decisions.

 

Also... what exactly is a "Member"?  Is that someone that owns a Waymark?  Or is it something else?

 

We anticipate there will be some categories that are so popular that people will want to rally around them. They'll discuss the subject, offer suggestions to officers, and basically exist as "fans". This will probably happen only in the really popular categories.

 

I propose a waymark for Art O Mats here is a site to describe them

http://www.artomat.org/home.html At these sites all over the country you can be a collector of fine art from a vending machine.

 

This is not the place to suggest new categories, and we aren't accepting them now anyways. You can talk about your idea here.

Share this post


Link to post
Communication would be a problem with heavily used categories. Altho I like Waymarking, Im not sure that this system will encourage me to be involved in the categories. Time constraints and the apparent increasingly difficult involvement in managing categories would deter me from wanting to manage any categories. Just my thoughts.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you aren't enthusiastic about managing a category we'd prefer if you didn't. Category managers will make up the smallest population, with waymark founders exponentially greater. Waymark visitors will be the most numerous of all.

 

As for communication, we'll have several ways of discussing issues at the officer and group level, with a carefully thought out heirarchy for making decisions.

Share this post


Link to post

I am enthusiastic about managing waymark categories. I have several I think would be good ones that I would love to be a part of. What Im not overly enthusiastic about (but am willing to wait and see how this goes) is a committee that sounds like it might be bogged down in structure/ rules. Not that Im a renegade or dont play well with others. I just wanted to quietly have a category with or without others, that just runs smoothly with a minimal amount of fuss. Oversight is good. Overly heavy oversight isnt.

 

Clear as mud?

Share this post


Link to post

OpinioNate said:

To boot the leader a unanimous officer vote is required.

 

That is all I was referring to.. that 100% is a bit too much to ask for, especially when Geo-Pals are involved.

 

I can get behind 75%, or even 80%, but 100% is too much.

 

Also, I agree with Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking, in that if a person wants to run a Catagory all by themselves that should be able to. The process is already in place to Vote Down a bad Catagory, and this would happen to bad Managers too.

 

While I don't like the Vote Up/Down process, since I don't think that the masses should decide for individuals what the individual should see, it does have its uses.

 

I would rather... and perhaps this is another topic all together... see a list of all Catagories, with the full Tree expanded and radio buttons. I would then "Deselect" Catagories or Sub-Catagories that I was not interested in.

 

The radio buttons that remain 'turned on' would then make up my "Interested List". As new ones come about, the tree would "Auto-Activate" and then I could manually "Deselect" via the same structure.

 

I don't know HTML, JAVA VM, Perl, or the Karma Sutra, but I would hope that the same methodology that allows me to see that new Forum posts, or new nearby Waymarks could be incorporated to say something like "New Waymark Catagory is now available" or "New Catagory - Snipe Hunting - has been added to your Interested List (remove)"

 

{edit: Adding this afterthought} This would be similar to when people search for Newsgroups... the first thing mine tells me is "There are new Newsgroups, would you like to see them?" Even from that, I could select new Catagories or Sub-Catagories to add to my Interested List"

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
see a list of all Catagories, with the full Tree expanded and radio buttons. I would then "Deselect" Catagories or Sub-Catagories that I was not interested in.

 

Blue Quasar, this is the best idea I have seen to help sort out categories I am interested/not interested in! :) I hope TPTB take a good long look at doing this - it is an excellent suggestion!

Share this post


Link to post
I am enthusiastic about managing waymark categories. I have several I think would be good ones that I would love to be a part of. What Im not overly enthusiastic about (but am willing to wait and see how this goes) is a committee that sounds like it might be bogged down in structure/ rules. Not that Im a renegade or dont play well with others. I just wanted to quietly have a category with or without others, that just runs smoothly with a minimal amount of fuss. Oversight is good. Overly heavy oversight isnt.

 

Clear as mud?

Yes very clear and I agree with you 100% especially for those category subs that pertain to a particular region only. Those that will go National or International may best be served by a committee. I too look forward to how it all shakes out.

 

Cheers, Olar

Share this post


Link to post

My question with regard to the 2/3 majority for category acceptance is that Waymarking allows "niche" interesting things to be logged. There's a good chance that something I wanna find,look for with my world-wide circle of friends is not of general interst to others--or will everyone OK everything siomply because they'll want/hope for similar treatment when they try propose their own niche category. So much of the discussion falls down when peo-ple don't post examples, so let me try to post one.

I submit a proposal for a category "buildings sporting ceramic tile facades" (a unique kind of tile, not just any tile) Now there's a sizeable group of us worldwide that'd love to share our love of this tile process, and its application to building exteriors--but it's not likely to generate broad appeal.

Two things can happen at this point:

a) People,say "sure, whatever!--let these category pass--I don't get it, but who am I to stop some category (they might stop mine too someday, I's better be nice)--the guy certainly sounds like he knows what he's talking about" and it passes. (lucky me) And this happens to everybody's category proposals,

:ph34r: People say "WTHeck?! Thats a stupid category--just put your waypoints in the "interesting buildings category"--end of discussion. (unlucky me)

 

We go away feeling disenfranchised by the whole Waymarking community feeling like no one understands us--and yet those stupid "nudist beaches", or "microbreweries" categories were--of course--approved!--things I would never have voted for.

 

It's just a for instance, but maybe it helps put my concerns in perspective. There are thigs of value that the masses would not care about, or everything gets allowed in because no one want to be the bad, intollerant, closed-minded guy.

 

JG (G2 of The Seven G's)

Share this post


Link to post
I am enthusiastic about managing waymark categories. I have several I think would be good ones that I would love to be a part of. What Im not overly enthusiastic about (but am willing to wait and see how this goes) is a committee that sounds like it might be bogged down in structure/ rules.  Not that Im a renegade or dont play well with others. I just wanted to quietly have a category with or without others, that just runs smoothly with a minimal amount of fuss. Oversight is good. Overly heavy oversight isnt.

 

Clear as mud?

Yes very clear and I agree with you 100% especially for those category subs that pertain to a particular region only.

 

Cheers, Olar

I too just want this to be fun. I like the locationless caches. I want my Stats in one place!!! and i want this to be easy, not bogged down in regulations. I'm hoping (as stated) that this only matters for high level categories, and that simply logging a find will never be so problematic. I've logged 1 waypoint already as a test--without having ever been there--I got the ccords online and logged it. This is an idea I don't like- and I hope will not be too easy. Yes I know it's not a category issue, but more of a general Waymarking concern for waypoint managers.

-JG

Edited by The Seven G's

Share this post


Link to post
Not that Im a renegade or dont play well with others. I just wanted to quietly have a category with or without others, that just runs smoothly with a minimal amount of fuss. Oversight is good. Overly heavy oversight isnt.

Just to give this topic a bump and get us back on debate - hoping that one day we can start getting submissions through.

 

I agree with this. When I posted "Onsens," "Swimming Holes," or the others that got used by someone else, I didn't anticipate that I'd have to get committee approval. It doesn't take that much effort to log a cache.

 

I mean, let's be realistic. This management problem only arises when you start requiring verification of the waymark before approval. For the WM categories that I would manage, the only thing I'd require is the log. I'm not getting into the photo requirements or having left your footprint in a concrete mold next to the WM. If people log a bum WM, it'll get found sooner or later.

 

Maybe then, we can do it that way. If you want to add an "approval requirement" for your category, you need to nominate two or three other users that are able to approve the WM. Then the WM will be managed by a group of people with a common interest in the category. Favoritism is going to exist forever and ever, amen. In WM it doesn't serve anybody's interest for the favoritism to exist. I _want_ people to log new WMs to my categories. I want as many WMs in each category as possible. I'll be more excited about how many WMs my categories have than I will be how many I've found or created myself.

 

VW

Share this post


Link to post

Did the discussion just die on this?

 

(Sorry, no time/patience to read the entire thread in advance.)

 

My idea is this,

 

Anyone should be able to categorize a waymark under the main category.

 

It should be easy for a member to propose a sub-category. Some limited involvement by geocaching.com would be necessary to weed out duplicate sub-categories, maybe along the lines of the way cache placement is monitored.

 

Place a limit on the total number of sub-categories supported if things get unmanageable. Also set a limit on the depth of sub-categories. X months after being created, the waymarks in a sub-category should be expected to represent at least Y% of the total number of waymarks. If not, the subcategory is retired and any waymarks moved to the next higher category. (Waymark owners could also have the option to submit their waymark to another subcategory) This process should weed out the less popular subcategories over time. The retired subcategory is returned to the pool of available subcategories. Sub-categories are re-evaluated every X months. If/When the number of sub-categories is maxed out, and most sub-categories are well subscribed (meaning not a lot are being retired and there's almost no chance to create a new one with the existing limit), the limit on the number of sub-categories can be increased. Also as the number waymarks increase, X and Y can be adjusted.

 

Waymarkers should vote for sub-categories with their waymarks, not in a forum.

 

Another suggestion, waymarks listed on the geocaching stats page.

 

I see lots of potential for GPS tourism in Waymarking. Say I'm interested to take a trip to a city but don't want to bother and pay money to research all the sites. I just go to Waymarking.com and I have a whole list of recommendations made by the community (locals and other tourists that have visited there). And I know exactly where each site is and how far away it is from my hotel. That is really excellent. (Could do to the travel guide business what Wikipedia has done to the encyclopedia business).

 

One problem which may eventually occur is ownership of the waymark. There may be waymark monopolies which may be tolerated at first as the number of waymarks overall is small, but as they increase and become more dense, become no longer appropriate. Maybe there should be a time limit on waymarks (2 years for example). Once a waymark expires, it could be put up for grabs (What about given each member a certain number of points to use in a waymark auction). If no one else had an interest, the original owner could take it again. And/or possibly a limit on the number of waymarks an individual owned (in a geographic area?).

Edited by RakeInTheCache

Share this post


Link to post
Let me see if I can steer this convo back on course... (please no more category proposals)

 

We're moving away from the newsgroup-style voting system and toward a group-based system now. Imagine a group of like minded folks cooperatively managing a single category...

 

What sort of issues come to mind? What sort of group management features would you be interested in?

 

Without getting into too much detail, the basic hierarchy planned will be one leader (whoever proposes the cat idea), some officers to help manage, and group members to add input.

 

Talk amongst yourselves :ph34r:

1) The members of the group managing a category need a semi-private forum to discuss topics of interest. Might be things such as adding variables, assigning responsibility for subcategories, etc. Mostly mundane stuff that doesn't warrant cluttering the public forum structure.

 

A voting feature in the forum might make this process easier.

------

 

2) Another neat feature might include "Category Chats" if the group moderator thinks that's appropriate to the category. This might be leading more into a concept I think of as Category Communities, where an expert in an subject might be invited to a chat session. Category Communities might bring in features such as "news" items, etc. But that line of thought might lead to "Virtual Waymarking" :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Hi i just scanned over this in regards to the creation of categories. Has anyone thought about rather than having a big complicated beauocracy of category managment to just have unused, unpopular categories expire? then your waypoints get dumped from a category and you are asked to recategorize them when you log on again. Also each visiting user could rank the appropriateness of a categorization (sort of like those music ranking stars) and suggest an alternate category for a waypoint. It becomes the responsibility of the people who want to keep wierd or stupid categories to renew them and keep them alive.

 

I was a little dissapointed in the Waymarking site when i logged on tonight. I was going to make a category and found this whole newsgroups BS happening. If you want to get the WM site moving like geocashing then you have to give the users ownership. If I have to petition you for my category then it's your site - your category, and not mine. No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

anyone a member of the [www.]facebook.com? i do believe that groups.yahoo.com operates in a similar fashion. this site also could provide insight in how to manage many groups (categories) in an easy to use format--for both 'user' and 'group owner'. granted, these are not waymarks or Waymarking, they manage similar sorts of ideas.

 

facebook has a group section. members create both public and private groups. they range from 'i own an i pod' to 'dorm "a" hall "s" RAs'. the owners of these groups can then add 'officers' in the group. yahoo groups is more of a large scale operation--as Waymarking will be (soon?).

 

should Waymarking categories not operate like this? for instance snake1411 (i think, and i have not spoke with him, this is a what if) owns the GA Historic Marker Category. he would like help in managing it (for whatever his reason).

 

either

1) he knows someone he can enlist the help of [a friend he knows, or some sort of Waymarking 'team' as geocaching has the 'admins' that approve caches]

or 2)he scans the category--or uses some nifty management tools--and finds that he has 2 users that have submitted quite a few waymarks in that category. could he not inquire about them accepting a 'asst. manager' position.

 

the group owner should maintain all ownership perks, and the assistants should just assist in the management of the category--approval/denial of marks, monitoring of acceptable logging proceedures and content, etc.......

 

categories should not expire. the voting process allows them to be open to the public or for premium members only. this process and information could be streamlined and easy to see. IE: a 'big ballot' with a yes/no/none radio button off to the side. then as a PM i should be able to see a 'special star' (color coded, like the forbidden zone?) and a number of voting % on the category page--next to the icon linking to the category gallery. in addition to that, on the search section it should go: newest, largest, top 50%.

 

posting new waymarks is a time consuming process in itself. i cant imagine posting new marks and logging existing ones, meanwhile having to recategorize already created marks each time i log on.

Share this post


Link to post

An example of what i was talking about.

 

a user creates a new category lets say "hotdog stands". now that category will expire in say 60 days unless it reaches some threshold of waypoints. We will say ten for arguments sake. So the user has 60 days to get ten waypoints logged into the category. if he doesn't then in 60 days he has to renew the category. if he gets ten then the category stays alive and doesn't have to be renewed. If he was a one timer then his category drops off the tree and the waypoint owners can recategorize their locations. It is somewhat similar to your voting system only you vote by where you put your waypoints. On the flip side the guy who just has to have his category of "air" can have it if he is willing to work on it and keep it alive. Who knows alot of people could feel the same way as he does.

 

It could be taken further in that if a category gets so many subcategories it moves up to a thrid or second teir category.

 

It is more interesting to me as a dynamic heirarchy than a static tree. No matter how you try to organize this thing half the people are going to think that you've done it wrong. At least in a system like this the responsibility is on the users to self manage. It would be a mess for a little while but after a few months you would probobly end up with a really solid heirarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Has anyone thought about rather than having a big complicated beauocracy of category managment to just have unused, unpopular categories expire?

I agree with this approach rather than forum voting.

Share this post


Link to post

Unused does not equal unpopular.

 

For example, pay phones and mcdonalds have a lot of waymarks, but the categories quite frankly are lame. What about a category that is specialized? You may not be able to find too many of them, certainly not as readily as McDonalds or a payphone, yet there may be a greater interest in them.

 

If there is a category for artworks created by a certain commission during a certain time period in US history, with many examples but require some researching to find them, you may not get many finds on it. It doesnt mean it is less popular, only that it isnt easy to find as the corner payphone or McDonalds. I personally have a greater interest in this type of category than in the McDonalds or the payphone.

 

If there is a category for Arizona Historical Markers, and Im the only one playing this game, then I may not get 10 of them listed since I am handicapped and driving around my state, as HUGE as it is, is a real hardship physically. So I may not have 10 of them within 60 days. It doesnt mean it is unpopular. It only means no one else around here is Waymarking and those who are cant log this category. So should I be penalized with this category expiring in 60 days because no one else can find these?

 

Number of waymarks does not equate to the popularity of a waymark category. The popularity filter proves that.

 

Edited for major typo.

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Share this post


Link to post
Unused does not equal unpopular.

 

...

Good point, but there needs to be some way of phasing out 'dead end' categories. Ones that no one uses, *and* no one likes.

 

Maybe a certain amount of activity coupled with the popularity filter might work....

Share this post


Link to post

The idea wold be that only categories that where put up and abandoned would expire. If a user set up a unique category that only he used or mabe only a few people used that would be fine. He would only need to log on every month or two to renew it to keep it alive. A simple check box and submit. Then when enough waypoints are logged it would become permanent.

Then with some sort of rating system waypoint owners could start to get suggestions on other categories that their waypoint might be better suited for. If enough waypoints migrated out of a category and into better ones then the empty category would automatcly get pruned from the tree, no intervention required.

And as for grossly inappropriate sites, I think "site of a corpse" was mentioned earlier you report it to the staff. A good policy on that should probobly be written. It took ebay a while to compile their list of stuff you can't acution, mostly through trial and error.

I'm thinking of geocaching.com as a model. The caches are not owned by geocahing. With the exception of legal issues geocaching does not tell owners where to put them or what to put in them. They belong to the owners. The same could be said of waymarks. The owners do significant work to mark and log their waypoints and i don't think it's unreasonable for them to want to place them on the site according to their preferences.

I'm also thinking of the Waymarking staff that will have to manage whatever system goes into effect. Websites in general take alot to mannage as it is and any of the workload that they can pass on to automation and user inputs will make their lives that much less stressfull. These are worldwide sites. Just think of how many geocaches are out there and then remove the neccesity for a cache and the potential for descrete wamarks is staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
For example, pay phones and mcdonalds have a lot of waymarks, but the categories quite frankly are lame.

Each member could have a category "ignore" list. Then you don't need to see the micky d's. Apparently some members don't find this category lame. "Lame" is too subjective a term.

 

I personally don't find creating a category for very rare locations to be especially useful.

 

Categories should be judged by the number of waymarks they have, not how many times the waymarks have been visited. A good waymark may be located in the middle of the Sahara but not many people will get to it. This is harmless.

Edited by RakeInTheCache

Share this post


Link to post
I personally don't find creating a category for very rare locations to be especially useful.

 

Categories should be judged by the number of waymarks they have

If that is how things will be done, then it doesnt sound like a lot of fun for me. Having to hunt for something rare is exciting. Having to look for payphones is dull. If all this is going to be is a big list of normal things, well not really interested in that. If this is going to have the excitement of hunting for a virtual cache....and they are exciting to me.....then the rare categories provide that excitement. I dont mind having to ignore payphones or McDonalds, unless I find a unique one to add. Others apparently enjoy them. I do mind if people want to squash rare categories because they dont find them useful. Why try and make it harder for me to have fun at this?

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...