Creating New Waymark Categories

[+Jake39]

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.

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.

That is fine for 'Categories' but what if you are looking at the logs for 'Waymarks' and decide there are not enough visiting as there are no logs? As you can see from the list below there were many visitors to some waymarks but no logs added, would you therefore say they aren't popular enough so we will dump them too?

 

SHELBURNE WIND FARM-- 51--VISITS (hits)--------------------NO LOGS

John Burke's Grist & Saw Mill -- 20---------------------------------- "

Hawai'i Volcanoes Wikipida Log-- 5 -------------------------------- "

BECHTEL DOG PARK 'DOGLOO' RUN-- 23 -------------------- --has 1 log

LYNDE HOUSE Whitby-- 26

GOATS CAVE---Hawai'i-- 36--

HOLOHOLOKAI PETROGLYPS PARK-- 36

KAILUA BAY WEB-CAM-BIG ISL.HA. -- 30--

The 'DRUDGE REPORT' -- 30--------------------------------------has 5 logs

KAANAPALI BEACH CAM-- 21------------------------------------has 1 log

LAHAINACAM-Lahaina-- 29

NIAGARA FALLS-- 31 ---------------------------------------------has 1 log--

TSUNAMI MUSEUM HILO HAWAI'I -- 18--

Where is Raed?-from- Baghdad - Iraq-- 24--------------------has 5 logs

PUAKO PETROGLYPHS-- HOLOHOLOKAI PARK-Hawai'i --37

KEVIN SITES - in the 'Hot Zone'--18------------------------------has 5 logs

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or Category owner)

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

Jake39, you have me confused. What do you mean by a "visit" and what do you mean by a "log?" How can you know somebody visited a waymark if they didn't log their visit? If you had given the categories and waymark codes for your examples I could have gone and seen what is entered there and have an idea of what you are talking about.

 

IMHO log is a poor choice of a word to use with waymarks. The recording of a new waymark and the recording of a visit to an existing waymark can both be called logging in geocache terms. In waymark-speak, these two distinct operations need distinct terms that cannot be confused by geocachers. Remember, many waymarkers are current or former geocachers!

[+Zzyzx Road]

I like the idea of being able to relist a waymark "Up one level" if it isn't collecting enough logs/visits. And also this being the responsibility of the "owner" the next time they log onto the site.

 

Same also for adding a catagory (sub or sub-sub even)

 

ie: I have a statue that I would like to list, it is a large (6 foot or so) wooden statue depicting a key figure symbolizing part of my town's ethnic heritage. I have a choice of Art, then Stauary (A three-dimensional work of art made of wood, stone or any other hard material), then either Insects OR Sphynxes.

I think there is a LOT more statuary than just those two particular items...Where is abstract (an art form or humans (many statues of figures)? Those to me are more general and more likely to have LOTS of waymarks.

 

Why not make a few general sub-catagories instead of something so specific right off the bat. Then if there are so many in that one sub-catagory (such as Wood or Animals for example) TPTB can make a new sub-catagory(ies)(a list of animals like Birds, 4-legged, reptiles, insects, mythical), and when you log back in you can re-classify your particular item, given that there would be new choices to place them in.

 

Then, if Mythical becomes so full of many kinds, TPTB could add sub-sub-sub catagories like Dragons, Centaurs, Faeries etc...

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

Jake39 gave me the link to the Drudge Report category. I saw nine (9) visits for that category. I do not understand how he claims that there were 30 visits and 5 logs for that category.

[+Jake39]

I saw nine (9) visits for that category. I do not understand how he claims that there were 30 visits and 5 logs for that category.

Not to be picky...I wasn't going to continue this thread but as of this morning there are 35 hits on "The Drudge Report" as I informed B.C. from A. by e-mail. The Drudge Report

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

Jake,

 

I still don't know where you are getting your numbers from. I just checked the Drudge Report a few minutes ago and it is still showing only nine (9) logged visits.

[+Zzyzx Road]

View-counter instead of actual written logs?

[+RakeInTheCache]

That is fine for 'Categories' but what if you are looking at  the logs for 'Waymarks' and decide there are not enough visiting as there are no logs? As you can see from the list below there were many visitors to some waymarks but no logs added, would you therefore say they aren't popular enough so we will dump them too?

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or Category owner)

To clarify, I think waymarks without logs is fine and see no reason to remove them. (Some waymarks may be very worthwhile but are difficult to get to or off the beaten path). I could be wrong but I don't believe there is a criteria for geocaches that they be visited any number of times.

 

Categories with only a very small number of waymarks seem unuseful to me. The threshhold for the number of waymarks a category should have could be determined as a percentage of all waymarks and could be measured at x month intervals (for example). If the category doesn't measure up after x months, it's deleted and the waymarks are recategorized to the next highest level.

 

For those rare finds, the waymark owner might add a key word to the title that would signal to others that it is special within its category. A keyword in the title search might be added as a way other rare waymark owners could easily locate your waymark.

Edited January 13, 2006 by RakeInTheCache

[+chstress53]

Visitors to the waymark page as of a minute ago.;

I was the 54th visitor; but there have been 9 logged visits to the actual waymark. Does that help you figure it out.

[+Team Neos]

I really don't understand all the concern about trying to get rid of categories that don't have x number of visits, or logs, or waymarks etc. If it isn't growing exponentially, it certainly won't be taking up too much space, so why not let it sit there quietly until someone wants to do something with that rare treasure? The system is already set up so that the most "popular" waymarks will show up in the filters.

 

I personally would rather go see some truely unique and fascinating location than to try to visit every one of place X in a category---but others may feel differently. The Waymarking system is designed to please either kind of user.

[Jeremy]

This conversation about archiving listings or demoting them really doesn't fit in a "Creating New Waymark Categories" topic. Please start a new one if you wish to discuss it further.

[+RakeInTheCache]

I really don't understand all the concern about trying to get rid of categories that don't have x number of visits, or logs, or waymarks etc. If it isn't growing exponentially, it certainly won't be taking up too much space, so why not let it sit there quietly until someone wants to do something with that rare treasure? The system is already set up so that the most "popular" waymarks will show up in the filters.

 

I personally would rather go see some truely unique and fascinating location than to try to visit every one of place X in a category---but others may feel differently. The Waymarking system is designed to please either kind of user.

So if I understood correctly, you would be for setting up categories easily without voting in a forum. In this case, I agree completely.

[+scrabblehounds]

a sub category for covered bridges would really be great as they become harder to find as the years go by

[+Jake39]

a sub category for covered bridges would really be great as they become harder to find as the years go by

Wrong -Forum-

You have already posted in 'Proposing New Waymarks' and you are 4 month late...

Sept.26-2005 Proposal

[+Poidawg]

I am interested in starting up a new category.

Recently while caching in Northern California, I noticed a huge umber of mosquito larva in tree holes. I thought that is was possible to connect geocaching and boyscouting and mosquito abatement. So I contacted my local Mosquito abatment department and asked them what the deal was with irradicating mosquitoes from these tree holes. They said they have a special polymer which when it gets wet it expands. Put in a tree hole, the mosquitoes no longer have a place to lay their eggs. The polymer dries out every summer and is good for four years. My local Mosquito abatement department is seriously considering my idea. They like the fact that cachers would be able to log their tree treatments and they would have access to the information, as would other cachers wishing to treat an area, reducing confusion and double treatment. Tree hole mosquitos are directly involved in Heartworm, which is usually fatal in dogs - the treatment is horrendous if not caught early. And it is possible these guys also transmit West Nile Virus. The treatment is easy, get checked out with regard to how to treat the trees and pick up the polymer, then log which trees you have treated using your gps unit, and then log your work on line....what do you think? I did some polling and found a number of people are interested in the project and would be willing to carry the polymer and treat the trees affected. Right now the mosquito abatement supervisor is putting my idea to his board. I just need to tae care of the details like having a waypoint web page in order to log the information...Thank you for responding

[Jeremy]

I am interested in starting up a new category.

It's definitely a neat idea and worthwhile as a waymark category. Would you mind creating a new proposal in the other forum about this? We can chat publicly there.

[+Poidawg]

Okay, lead me to that forum....tell me where to go...(it is not often I ask people to do that!!!)

[+Poidawg]

Okay, lead me to that forum....tell me where to go...(it is not often I ask people to do that!!!) Okay proposals. got it...

[gebli]

Hi - I would like to get a new category created.

This summer I had the chance to visit some rural area schools, usually located quite far away from any town. For example, the road to one of them does not appear in any map I checked. Children in these schools don't have the chance to speak with people coming from cities. Speaking with the headmaster, who also is teh single teacher of the single class (...) asked me how to promote visits to these schools. Visitors would go and just have a few minutes chat with the children. That would be of big help to them.

 

First I thought of placing a cache but then I came across waymark.com and I think this is more appropriate.

I would like to post these places becasue usually getting there is a very nice trip (I visited schools in Patagonia, Argentina) and also because visitors will be helping children without too much effort.

 

I didn't find a category where to post schools. I guess a schools category under buildings would be good enough.

 

Thanks.

[+Jake39]

didn't find a category where to post schools. I guess a schools category under buildings would be good enough.

Read answer above or quote below

It's definitely a neat idea andworthwhile as a waymark category. Would you mind creating a new proposal in the other forum about this? We can chat publicly there.

[gebli]

It's definitely a neat idea andworthwhile as a waymark category. Would you mind creating a new proposal in the other forum about this? We can chat publicly there.

 

Sorry... Which would the other forum be? I'm brand new here...

[+cache_test_dummies]

Sorry... Which would the other forum be? I'm brand new here...

New category proposals are being posted in the Waymarking Category Proposals topic.

[+BillsBayou]

Question: Will poaching be allowed on category management?

 

Example: Suppose the Hawaii Historical Marker category is open. I propose the category but I'm not in Hawaii. Then someone actually IN Hawaii proposes the same category. Who should get it?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Ummm, in a word....

 

Probably

 

That doesn't differ from how Locationless handled, nor do I think it shouldn't be allowed.

 

If I want a Category for "Bull Fighting Locations" even though I live in Canada... why not?

 

The Blue Quasar

[+The Leprechauns]

You'll have to show up with a group in order to be awarded a new category, as I understand the process to be rolled out soon. If the community thinks that it's dumb for a Pennsylvania waymarker to manage a "South American Religious Shrines" category, they will ignore my pleas for joining a management group. Interested waymarkers would gravitate towards the nice fellow from Buenos Aires who is proposing the same thing. In other cases, nobody should care. Of my categories, two are worldwide, one is all of the USA and one is Pennsylvania-only. Ideally I would like to form diverse management groups that reflect the scope of the category.

[+BillsBayou]

Ok, I'm putting the group together now. I've sent out invitations to several prospective members. How do we get a charter?

[+Jake39]

I guess I must be the only one that does not understand the 'Group Management' theory you are constantly referring to in these discussions. Why do you need a group to manage "YOUR" category? You applied for it, asked for suggestions and probably received positive or negative feedback before or after being awarded a particular category.

Now....How do you settle disputes? By a group? Does everyone get a notification of a 'Waymark' submission? Can you override another decision?

Eg...You stipulated a 'GPS' in the picture and maybe with or without a person or with other physical evidence in a way of a picture at a location. The next person (in the group) looks at it and thinks the submission is good enough for him and approves it, but you would not like it. Who has the last word? Or is there one?

What am I missing here?

[+cache_test_dummies]

I guess I must be the only one that does not understand the 'Group Management' theory you are constantly referring to in these discussions. Why do you need a group to manage "YOUR" category?

<snip>

Nothing has been formally announced yet, but it appears that the new model for creating categories will involve establishing a group of people to participate in the management of that category.

 

The notion of group management has been discussed since the early days of Waymarking when it became clear that categories managed by a single person, when combined with an 'approval required' attribute, could lead to frustrating delays in getting waymarks posted. We have seen some of these situations already.

 

We'll have to wait and see how this will all be handled, but in theory, a group of people who share an interest in a category, given a means to privately discuss issues related to the management of that category, could be a pretty effective way to keep the waymarks flowing. My guess is that one individual will still 'own' the category, and have more direct control than the supporting management team, but the team will provide a mechanism for waymark approval to continue when the owner isn't able to do so in a timely fashion.

[OpinioNate]

I posted this in another thread but it fits better for this discussion:

 

We'll be hearing much more about this any day now, right?

 

Aye. As we approach the next update I suppose now is a good time to reveal a little about the Group management process Bootron and I have designed to alleviate these and other concerns on waymarkers' minds lately.

 

All existing categories will eventually (read: ~2 months from update) be brought up to meet the group requirements for managing a new category. We have created a simple process for assigning a newly created Group to one of your existing categories. One Group, one category.

 

A Group will consist of, at minimum, 2 officers and one leader. The leader is the person who originally created the Group and will have the most permissions related to category and Group management.

 

All Group officers will be notified by email when a new waymark is submitted and the first officer to visit the Group page will have the opportunity to review the submission. Once again, an email will be sent to all officers informing them of this action. Indeed, most actions in the group or category, from the calling of votes to promotion of group members, will result in an email notification to keep everyone in the loop.

 

The idea here is to prevent what you describe, chstress53. If one officer is MIA or on vacation then the other two can step up to fill the gap. Also, if one officer is not adding anything to the category management he or she can be dismissed by the other two (or more). Majority rules. It would behoove you to choose your fellow officers wisely to avoid this.

 

I'll speak more on category creation and voting soon. Happy Waymarking!

 

-Nate

[OpinioNate]

For all Premium Members interested in creating a new category, the process will be as follows:

 

Create a Category

 

Before creating a category you must first create a Group to manage it. This is when you choose some reliable folks (at least 2) as I mentioned above. After promoting them to the rank of officer you'll find that the category creation link on your Group page will become available to you. Talk amongst yourselves with regard to category description and variables, with an eye toward appealing to the broader Waymarking community. Once you have completed editing the category Leader will...

 

Call for an officer vote of the category

 

All officers are required to be in 100% agreement of the category name, description, and variables. When the leader sends the category for officer review an email will go out to all officers notifying them of a pending vote. Once the last officer votes "Yea" the Group leader can send the category to...

 

Peer Review

 

Peer Review will consist of a queue available to all Premium Members allowing them to review, vote, and comment on category hopefuls. Voting lasts for 3 days (subject to change) and is completely anonymous. In the case where a category is on the fence, Groundspeak reserves the right to make the final decision, but in most cases we will err on the side of approving the category. One of the things to keep in mind when voting on categories is that some people have a different idea of what is "wow!". If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't, go ahead and vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

 

After the Peer Review process is completed all officers will be notified by email of the results, along with a link to read the comments left by Premium Members. In addition to the "Way to go!"s, you may find some helpful suggestions for small tweaks to your category here.

 

Assuming your category was approved by the community, congratulations! You should start receiving new waymarks any moment now.

 

In the off chance the community hated it, the category will be archived and your Group will need to start again from scratch. It's not recommended to submit the same category to Peer Review more than a couple times.

 

Here is a list of the different times an officer vote will be required:

• Category review prior to Peer Review (100%)
  
• Demote an Officer to Member status (66%)
  
• Demote the Leader to Officer status (100%)
  
• Officer (not Leader) dismisses regular Member from Group (66%)
  

All this dismissing and demoting may seem a bit dire, but we needed to account for unruly Group Members and rogue Leaders accidentally invading the ranks. Probably most Groups will not ever have a use for these tools, but they're there if you need them.

 

Other cool Group tools: Group logo upload and custom Officer rank naming (e.g. Supreme Overlord or Peon Prime). Different permissions can be assigned by the Leader to each of the ranks (Group announcements, invite new members, change logo and a few others).

 

Also seen in this update will be several interface and feature changes (in-line image uploads for waymark descriptions, for ex.) to make navigation and use a little more intuitive. We hope you like them!

 

-Nate

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Nate -

 

This sounds good !

I have a couple of questions though.

 

I think I understand what an officer and a leader is, but this

Member status

and this

Demote an Officer to Member status (66%)

has me confused. What is a Member, if not an officer or leader?

 

Assuming the minimum of 2 officers and 1 leader, this:

Demote the Leader to Officer status (100%)

seems odd unless all the voting rules meant the leader never votes, which would be even more odd.

[OpinioNate]

I think I understand what an officer and a leader is, but this

Member status

and this

Demote an Officer to Member status (66%)

has me confused. What is a Member, if not an officer or leader?

 

You may also have Group members that are neither an officer nor the leader. These are essentially "fans" of the category who do not have any special permissions. In the future we'll create features that will allow Members to take a more active role in decisions that affect the category, but for now they're there to show moral support. The Leader can dismiss a Member on a whim but an Officer will need to call a vote. You can toggle between "Open Enrollment: ON" (anyone can join at any time) or "Open Enrollment: OFF" (invite only).

 

Assuming the minimum of 2 officers and 1 leader, this:

Demote the Leader to Officer status (100%)

seems odd unless all the voting rules meant the leader never votes, which would be even more odd.

 

No Group member can vote on an issue that directly affects them (promotion or dismissal) so 100% refers to whoever is left (in this case, 2). If all the Officers you recruited decide to mutiny you may find yourself toppled.

 

There are a variety of reasons for this. One is that you might have a nutty dictator who should never have been in charge to begin with. Another could be that the Leader has fallen off the face of the earth. If you're the Leader and worried about a mutiny you had better start recruiting more Officers. The more Officers you have the more difficult it will be for them to garner 100% support against you.

 

If you are demoted, the system will automatically swap your rank with that of the next highest ranking Officer.

 

Great questions! Please keep 'em coming.

 

-Nate

[Wintertime]

All existing categories will eventually (read: ~2 months from update) be brought up to meet the group requirements for managing a new category.

So you'll be rolling out the group management capability category by category until all of them have it? Any idea what order you'll be using, so that maybe we can predict when specific categories will get it?

 

We have created a simple process for assigning a newly created Group to one of your existing categories. One Group, one category.

Where will we find the group creation function? Will it perhaps show up as another option on "My Page Options"?

 

Thank you *very* much for the update, Nate!

 

Patty

[OpinioNate]

All existing categories will eventually (read: ~2 months from update) be brought up to meet the group requirements for managing a new category.

So you'll be rolling out the group management capability category by category until all of them have it? Any idea what order you'll be using, so that maybe we can predict when specific categories will get it?

 

As soon as you create your first Group the "adopt" a category function will be available. It's a built-in feature so no intervention by Groundspeak is necessary. The 2 month time frame is more a grace period so people have time to get acquainted.

 

We have created a simple process for assigning a newly created Group to one of your existing categories. One Group, one category.

Where will we find the group creation function? Will it perhaps show up as another option on "My Page Options"?

 

Yep. A new link will appear at the right of the "My Page" that says "My Groups".

 

-Nate

[+Jake39]

snip

We have created a simple process for assigning a newly created Group to one of your existing categories. One Group, one category.

A Group will consist of, at minimum, 2 officers and one leader. The leader is the person who originally created the Group and will have the most permissions related to category and Group management. snip

Happy Waymarking!

-Nate

Lets see now.... minimum of 3 for every category X 226 categories = 678 participants.

................... if there are 500 categories (maybe) X 3 = 1500 participants (Right?)

Where are we going to find them???

[OpinioNate]

Lets see now.... minimum of 3 for every category X 226 categories = 678 participants.

................... if there are 500 categories (maybe) X 3 = 1500 participants (Right?)

Where are we going to find them???

 

Actually, there is no limit on the number of Groups in which you're allowed to be an officer. So for the first 3 unique users a total of 9 categories are accounted for. After that each additional team Leader can support 3 categories without going outside the original 3 for Officer support.

 

4 users = 12 cats

5 users = 15 cats

6 users = 18 cats and so on...

 

226 Categories / 3 Groups per Premium Member = 75 1/3 unique users (a third? ouch)

 

Don't let the activity in this forum fool you; There are a greater number of interested participants than you think. Also, keep in mind that we have yet to announce the website publicly anywhere. The former locationless owners' email and this forum hiding down here at the bottom are the only indications we've given that there is a new website being developed.

 

EDIT: we raised the cap on category managent from 3 to 5

Edited April 3, 2006 by OpinioNate

[OpinioNate]

Also, every requirement I've mentioned so far will potentially be adjusted as time goes on. Peer Review may be shorter or longer than three days, the number of categories one can create may go up, the vote percentages may change, etc. We can be flexible if you find a good reason to be.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Also, every requirement I've mentioned so far will potentially be adjusted as time goes on. Peer Review may be shorter or longer than three days, the number of categories one can create may go up, the vote percentages may change, etc. We can be flexible if you find a good reason to be.

I may have missed it, but did you mention someplace that there will be a limit to the number categories any given person can create (bolded text)?

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

I may have missed it, but did you mention someplace that there will be a limit to the number categories any given person can create (bolded text)?

OpinioNate's math in his previous example implies that he is putting a limit of three (3) categories of which you can be Group Leader.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I may have missed it, but did you mention someplace that there will be a limit to the number categories any given person can create (bolded text)?

OpinioNate's math in his previous example implies that he is putting a limit of three (3) categories of which you can be Group Leader.

I did see that, but I wasn't sure if what was being implied was an example, or a fixed number, or just kind of 'thinking out loud'.

 

I only asked because a number of us have proposed more than 3 categories, and knowing that there will be a fixed number of categories which one person can own will potentially change the way people pursue the creation of categories.

 

I don't object to a limit. In fact, it makes sense. I was just seeking clarification.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Forgive me for saying so but I doubt I'll be able to own a category based upon your guidelines.

 

The lack of people involved in Waymarking in my corner of the globe seems limited. At this time, I can't possibly find a group of people that I could trust to help with it.

 

Secondly, there are over 200 categories operating right now with just one reviewer... are they going to have to find management groups now? What happens if the don't?

 

I certainly understand and appreciate the effort OpinioNate and Bootron, but when you compare it to other Groundspeak games it seems a bit 'je ne sais quois'

 

In Geocaching, Cache-Tech can approve or review across 5 provinces, Keystone does it across all of PA. But in the "Historic Plaques" for Ontario... Jake39 now needs at least 2 friends, and Leprechaun does too?

 

I thought Waymarking was supposed to be a fun way to catalog sites that match criteria.... now it sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through just to say 'come see a statue'

 

The Blue Quasar

[+The Leprechauns]

Forgive me for saying so but I doubt I'll be able to own a category based upon your guidelines.

 

The lack of people involved in Waymarking in my corner of the globe seems limited. At this time, I can't possibly find a group of people that I could trust to help with it.

 

For a category that's not Ontario specific, why limit yourself to your geo-buddies? If you have an interest in a subject that I think is cool, I would be honored to be a junior officer in your management group. For an Ontario or Canadian category, you are well-known. Be a leader and drum up interest in Waymarking by posting in regional forums about your idea.

 

Secondly, there are over 200 categories operating right now with just one reviewer... are they going to have to find management groups now? What happens if the don't?

Yes we have to put together management groups. I am already well along in the process for my popular Pennsylvania Historic Markers category -- I will simply ask the most active waymarkers. For two of my slower categories, I've posted threads in the new forum for established categories. Within two days I put together a stellar group for "Iron Furnace Ruins." I have never met any of them but they all have excellent reputations as geocachers and now as waymarkers.

 

I certainly understand and appreciate the effort OpinioNate and Bootron, but when you compare it to other Groundspeak games it seems a bit 'je ne sais quois'

 

In Geocaching, Cache-Tech can approve or review across 5 provinces, Keystone does it across all of PA. But in the "Historic Plaques" for Ontario... Jake39 now needs at least 2 friends, and Leprechaun does too?

 

I thought Waymarking was supposed to be a fun way to catalog sites that match criteria.... now it sounds like a lot of hoops to jump through just to say 'come see a statue'

 

The Blue Quasar

 

I view it as forcing me to find at least two friends for each of my categories. Friends are good! As for your analogy to cache reviewers, the geocache review system actually lends support for the idea of group management at Waymarking. Yes, Keystone may be the primary cache reviewer for Western Pennsylvania. But if Keystone is on vacation, has the flu, has a big project due at his paying job, etc., there are designated backups who can step in to assist in his absence. He needs only to post a note in the reviewers forum to say that he needs help. At Waymarking, a quick post to the group's forum saying that the group leader is on vacation for a week will have the same effect.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

In finding possible group members for category management, as well as for general Waymarking use/interest, it would sure help if the Stats included

Waymarks Owned

instead of just Waymarks Visited.

Many people participate a lot in a category by establishing lots of waymarks in it, but 'Visit' none of them.

 

(I know the workaround is to use the advanced search on Username (owner), but it isn't handy.)

[+The Blue Quasar]

Well first off I should say that I thank Leprechaun for offering to support a category if I owned one. I get the feeling we would work well together.

 

But I don't think it is right that people are being, as you say, "FORCED" to add management teams. It isn't a NEED, but more of an OPTION thing.

 

Right now, Jake39 is doing a great job of handling the Ontario Historic Plaques category, and I get the same impression about Leprechaun's PAHM and even Bootron's McDonald's category. Why should they HAVE to add a management team? Shouldn't it be available in they WANT to invite people to share in it?

 

Maybe Jake39, Leprechaun or Bootron to name a few, don't want to share the duties... if they can handle it on their won, why force the issue?

 

If this is how it is going to be, I'll be suggesting to Jake39 that he adds me to his management group and I will sit as a silent partner and do nothing unless he asks me to.

 

If a cateogory is not being managed properly, because the person that owns it is doing nothing... it could be handled like caches are... disabled... then offered for adoption. If there is lack of interest in someone taking over, then the topic isn't interesting enough to continue to exist as a category... thus it gets archived.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+The Blue Quasar]

So let me see if I have this right...

 

To get a new category the following must happen

 

1... Formulate a unique idea for a category

2... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

3... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

4... Hope to get 5 votes in favour

5... Hope that Groundspeak decides to list my category

 

The Blue Quasar

[+tozainamboku]

In finding possible group members for category management, as well as for general Waymarking use/interest, it would sure help if the Stats included

Waymarks Owned

instead of just Waymarks Visited.

Many people participate a lot in a category by establishing lots of waymarks in it, but 'Visit' none of them.

 

(I know the workaround is to use the advanced search on Username (owner), but it isn't handy.)

 

The waymarks you own (and I assume the groups you belong to) appear on separate tabs on your My Page. It would be nice to see these tabs when looking another waymarker's profile as well.

[+Dew Crew]

So let me see if I have this right...

 

To get a new category the following must happen

 

1... Formulate a unique idea for a category

2... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

3... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

4... Hope to get 5 votes in favour

5... Hope that Groundspeak decides to list my category

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Yes, is that right? I really don't know. Do I need to get my minimum of 2 people to join my category group before I suggest my category in the forums?

[+Black Dog Trackers]

To get a new category the following must happen

 

1... Formulate a unique idea for a category

2... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

3... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

4... Hope to get 5 votes in favour

5... Hope that Groundspeak decides to list my category

I think this is a correct summarization by The Blue Quasar of what OpinioNate said.

It strikes me that the order of things here is a bit backward.

 

2... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

3... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

 

This is gonna be difficult.

 

Suppose I want to make a category for Waymarking the largest examples of any tree species.

How do I find anyone who has any interest in that? This is not to say there there is zero interest in such things; there are lots of people who would drive hundreds of miles to see the biggest example of, say, an American Sycamore tree or the largest Silver Maple or perhaps even the second or third biggest. However, I don't know which waymarkers would be interested in that kind of category! I could cajole some people to play along with me just to get things going, but how artificial is that! I could even offer my services as token yea-sayer for any proposed category and to resign officership as soon as people actually interested in said category appear. How artificial is that!!!

 

If this was the order:

 

2... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

3... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

 

then it would be a whole lot easier.

 

The proposed order of things seems significantly biased to assure that no new categories are created.

How about some intermediary step if not re-ordering the requirements as above?

[Eaglehaslanded]

Jeff Kirwan is the POC for the Virginia Big Tree Program. Here at http://www.cnr.vt.edu/4h/bigtree

He came out to a Boy Scout Roundtable to talk to us about updating the Big Tree Program Database.

 

I hope this will help

Eaglehaslanded

So let me see if I have this right...

 

To get a new category the following must happen

 

1... Formulate a unique idea for a category

2... Find a minimum of 2 people to join my category group

3... Post a suggestion to the forum to see if people want my category listed

4... Hope to get 5 votes in favour

5... Hope that Groundspeak decides to list my category

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Yes, is that right? I really don't know. Do I need to get my minimum of 2 people to join my category group before I suggest my category in the forums?

[+Dew Crew]

For all Premium Members interested in creating a new category, the process will be as follows:

 

Create a Category

 

Before creating a category you must first create a Group to manage it. This is when you choose some reliable folks (at least 2) as I mentioned above.

 

What kind of defence will there be against someone just making two new accounts and using those as their officers?

 

Thanks for the update by the way!

 

Dew Crew