Creating New Waymark Categories

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

This group management scheme seems like a lot of hassle to solve a minor problem. If a category owner is slow to approve new waymarks to a category and TPTB are getting a lot of complaints about him, then TPTB can order him to get alternate approvers or lose the category. Why make the category owners that are doing a good job go through this group management mess?

[+cache_test_dummies]

This group management scheme seems like a lot of hassle to solve a minor problem. If a category owner is slow to approve new waymarks to a category and TPTB are getting a lot of complaints about him, then TPTB can order him to get alternate approvers or lose the category. Why make the category owners that are doing a good job go through this group management mess?

I don't view this as a minor problem. Putting substantial effort into recording a waymark, only to have it sit in limbo for weeks, is a major point of frustration for anyone that has experienced it.

 

One of the primary problems that Groundspeak was trying to solve when they spun off the Waymarking site was to reduce pressure on their volunteers. By implementing more of a 'self managed' style of ownership, the Groundspeak volunteers won't have to get caught up in the middle of these type of issues.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I think the group management plan is good. Not only will it protect a category from an abdicating manager, it will greatly lessen the liklihood of a category being quirky. People have personalities but category management should be plain-vanilla, and a group managing it instead of just one person would help to achieve that, I think. I think we've all seen dynamic finders in geocaching/Waymarking suddenly disappear. Group management would keep a category from sufferening along with such a disappearance.

 

Sure, it's more work to manage a committee, but think of it from Groundspeak's perspective - they're presently managing a committee of category owners - a big job. Group management would help Groundspeak do this, and that's what they're wanting, obviously.

[Wintertime]

I think we've all seen dynamic finders in geocaching/Waymarking suddenly disappear. Group management would keep a category from sufferening along with such a disappearance.

I'm on a mailing list for Yahoo Group owners, and it must be nearly every week that we get a panicked "Our group's owner has died/disappeared! What can we do??!" posting.

 

In the case of Yahoo, it's almost impossible to get them to transfer a group to a new owner. Now, Groundspeak is not Yahoo, so their policies may be quite different. But I can understand perfectly why they'd want to avoid the problem in the first place by ensuring that there are other people to carry on if the nominal leader of a category goes missing. That way, they don't have to get in the middle of a custody battle over who should inherit the category.

 

Patty

[OpinioNate]

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)?

 

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

 

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.

 

We view it as a need. The integrity of the directory is at stake, as well as waymarker's trust that their hard work will not go to waste.

 

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

 

More like:

 

1. Formulate a unique idea for a category

2. Post your idea in the forums to gain 2 members' support

3. Form a Group and submit your category to Peer Review

4. Have confidence your category will be approved by the community since you worked out the kinks in the above steps

 

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.

 

That is the order.

 

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

 

There is no defence against this. However, how many people do you know that would spend $90 and walk away?

 

This group management scheme seems like a lot of hassle to solve a minor problem. If a category owner is slow to approve new waymarks to a category and TPTB are getting a lot of complaints about him, then TPTB can order him to get alternate approvers or lose the category. Why make the category owners that are doing a good job go through this group management mess?

 

Sure. Right now if someone has a problem with slow managers not approving new waymarks they can appeal to Groundspeak and we'll send off an email. Easy. With only ~200 categories, that is.

 

Now fast forward a year from now when there are potentially thousands of categories, and multiple thousands of waymarks to be approved. Is it realistic to think a small company like Groundspeak can attend to each and every "my waymark is being ignored" complaint? You're talking about a lot of overtime.

 

Plus, we like to think that giving waymarkers control over the appeals process will foster a sense of community and encourage integrity. We want this site to be as much yours as it is ours, and so we created some tools for you to exert that ownership and accountability.

 

Thanks everyone for all the great comments

 

-Nate

[+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)?

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

Thank you for the clarification, Nate.

 

Do category Officers have to be Premium Members as well?

[OpinioNate]

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)?

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

Thank you for the clarification, Nate.

 

Do category Officers have to be Premium Members as well?

 

Yes, Officers and Leaders all need to be Premium Members, though plain ole Group members do not.

 

-Nate

[+cache_test_dummies]

Thanks for all the responses, Nate!

[+Black Dog Trackers]

So not too long from now, if someone proposes a category, people might respond favorably since they might then be selected as an officer. When this process officially starts, I will want to re-propose some things and propose some other things.

Edited March 21, 2006 by Black Dog Trackers

[+Dew Crew]

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

 

There is no defence against this. However, how many people do you know that would spend $90 and walk away?

<snip>

 

Probably nobody. Sorry, I didn't realize you had to be a premium member to be an officer.

 

Thanks for all the replies!

 

Dew Crew

Edited March 21, 2006 by Dew Crew

[OpinioNate]

The website update is complete and live! Please have a look and let us know what you think.

 

-nate

[+silverquill]

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

 

Does this mean as Primary Officer, or as an officer/manager?

 

In other words, can one "own" three categories and also be part of a management group for other categories?

[iryshe]

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

 

Does this mean as Primary Officer, or as an officer/manager?

 

In other words, can one "own" three categories and also be part of a management group for other categories?

 

I believe you can only be a president of 3 categories but you can be part of a management group of more than that. I'll check with bootron tomorrow.

[OpinioNate]

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories.

 

Does this mean as Primary Officer, or as an officer/manager?

 

In other words, can one "own" three categories and also be part of a management group for other categories?

 

You may only lead (be the highest rank of) 3 categories, but there is no restriction to the number of other categories for which you can be a supporting Officer.

 

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

Edited April 3, 2006 by OpinioNate

[+ChapterhouseInc]

what about those that had more than 3 proir to this? i have/had 5 categories. how is this to be resolved?

 

and would this also not limit the number of categories one could create? as i 'have' 5 now. i just started a group for another (national register of historic places) and have several ideas for other categories i want to create.

 

is there to be any sort of 'charter member' status for Waymarking?

 

just some questions about the things going on....

happy hunting...

chapterhouse

[OpinioNate]

what about those that had more than 3 proir to this? i have/had 5 categories. how is this to be resolved?

 

and would this also not limit the number of categories one could create? as i 'have' 5 now. i just started a group for another (national register of historic places) and have several ideas for other categories i want to create.

 

Those lucky few to whom I transferred more than 3 categories pre-update will be able to continue to lead those groups, but cannot create any new categories. To start a new category you'd need to leave 3 of your 5 in the care of another leader.

 

is there to be any sort of 'charter member' status for Waymarking?

 

just some questions about the things going on....

happy hunting...

chapterhouse

 

We're deciding ways of rewarding those of you who have put in a lot of effort in the early stages, as well as incentives for future waymarkers to continue building the database. It's likely we'll offer the chance to "earn" categories beyond the maximum 3 based on your contributions.

[+Jake39]

OpinioNate Posted Yesterday, 05:49 PM >snipped< It's likely we'll offer the chance to "earn" categories beyond the maximum 3 based on your contributions.

Please 'hurry' before I give any more 'Categories' away......for days I have had a group set up for 'Historic Forts' but have to dispose one more category first

[Jeremy]

I don't see an open invite to that group in the forums anywhere.

[+Jake39]

It always reverts back to an existing 'Category'

Will try again....(still have 'Hawai'i Historic Markers' incompleted Group Category on standby)

 

Historic Forts Group link

[+ChapterhouseInc]

well, im glad i wasnt the only one scrambling to get rid of categories.....

 

i also see that the conversion has been kind of slow.....how many groups wont convert and have 'what that post says' done to them?

 

i see that the limit has been upped, thanks, now that i have given a category or 2 away, i might can create my own category(ies), still got some peddeling going on.....it just isnt feasable to create the group, set up the description and then pass it on to someone to 'lead'.

 

can we see a list of the non-converted locationless caches that could be 'restarted' now by someone else....many of them have been suggested here.....