+caderoux Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Like Memorials (0) - because it has 0 waymarks, but there are 2 categories of memorials ready for waymarks. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 As we move stuff around, the counts will be wrong. Once we get all the categories in the right place we'll reset the counts so the Memorials (0) will be Memorials (2). The counts will aggregate up to the root. It's just an in-beta thing now. Link to comment
+caderoux Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 (edited) I don't think the counts are wrong; they ARE correct counts of waymarks, the (0) just seems to indicate there are no categories underneath, when there _are_ categories, just no waymarks. So it's really 0 waymarks in 2 categories. Edited August 17, 2005 by caderoux Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 It is actually meant to be the total count of *all* waymarks within the root and beneath it. It doesn't relate to the actual category count. On our test machine we populated it with 2 million USGS placenames to make sure it could take the hit. It did rather well. We decided instead of releasing it with these placenames, however, that we would release the site with the slate clean. And in delicious irony the first waymark is a McDonalds where the Groundspeak crew often has lunch. How ironic Link to comment
fishiam Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 And in delicious irony the first waymark is a McDonalds where the Groundspeak crew often has lunch. How ironic And speaking personally .. just as there is no GC1 (at least reachable via the search page) it would be great if all of a sudden there was no WM1 Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Seriously, did Ronald McDonald and Grimace beat you up as a kid? Link to comment
fishiam Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Seriously, did Ronald McDonald and Grimace beat you up as a kid? I subscribe to the Small is Beautiful attitude toward life. The movement towards having a small number of super providers for everything in America is sad. McDonald's was one of the first to chase out of town local ma and pa dining establishments (as happened in the small town in Michigan where I grew up). So, no I wasn't beat up - I just don't like what has happened ... and there is no debating that such places have had a serious deleterious health effect on both our youth and nation. I appreciate I am in the minority here but I can still fight for what I believe in, right? Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I appreciate I am in the minority here but I can still fight for what I believe in, right? You bet. But you also have to understand that to create a well featured Waymarking.com web site I am unable to take on that narrow view. And no, I'm not cutting on your views as narrow in the way of "stupid." In fact I very much respect your beliefs. What I mean is we have to take into account as many views as we can. Besides, it is a testament to geocachers that the category was downgraded so quickly. If anything this is a positive point that waymark categories with commercial aspects can co-exist with other types. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I would also respond with a counterpoint that it would be an interesting category to show Independent Fast Food locations as a waymark category. My monk travel bugs are asked to visit local coffee shops for similar reasons that you have about big business. Commercialism isn't all bad. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Oops. Sorry. I strayed off topic. Link to comment
+Lil Devil Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 Oops. Sorry. I strayed off topic. Where's the mods when we need one? Link to comment
fishiam Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I appreciate I am in the minority here but I can still fight for what I believe in, right? You bet. But you also have to understand that to create a well featured Waymarking.com web site I am unable to take on that narrow view. And no, I'm not cutting on your views as narrow in the way of "stupid." In fact I very much respect your beliefs. What I mean is we have to take into account as many views as we can. Besides, it is a testament to geocachers that the category was downgraded so quickly. If anything this is a positive point that waymark categories with commercial aspects can co-exist with other types. I won't quibble over whether my views are "narrow". I am just now getting a sense of the massiveness of this project. You intend to take over the world, don't you? I will be very interested to see how this grows and develops and I certainly support the basic premise behind this ambitious project. I suspect the Popularity Filter will play a key role in making the site usuable to most waymarkers. Still ... part of me will continue to wish that the focus was on local and interesting. peace, fishiam Link to comment
+Wander Lost Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I would also respond with a counterpoint that it would be an interesting category to show Independent Fast Food locations as a waymark category. My monk travel bugs are asked to visit local coffee shops for similar reasons that you have about big business. Commercialism isn't all bad. **raises hand** That is a great catagory, I know of a place like that I'd love to share with more people. On topic, I like how open the catagories are. What doesn't appeal to some people may to others. I have small kids, they worship at the golden arches. It's quick, easy, I get some cache swag and I don't get an argument about eating I also feel no guilt using their restrooms while on a cache run with out buying anything. Link to comment
+caderoux Posted August 17, 2005 Author Share Posted August 17, 2005 As far as my original question, does anyone see merit in showing any measure of the underlying category structure at the top level in addition to just it's current utilization? Link to comment
+Langner91 Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 On topic, I like how open the catagories are. What doesn't appeal to some people may to others. I have small kids, they worship at the golden arches. It's quick, easy, I get some cache swag and I don't get an argument about eating I also feel no guilt using their restrooms while on a cache run with out buying anything. I agree, I love the categories and the possibilities too. I do fear that once the Restaurants category has 598 different sub-categories under it, it may not be fun to look through. Link to comment
+Wander Lost Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I do fear that once the Restaurants category has 598 different sub-categories under it, it may not be fun to look through. At that point I would hope that sub-sub-catagories might be created. So we'd see something like: Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Fine Dining Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Fast Food Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Buffets That would be something added when/if the need arises. Link to comment
Jeremy Posted August 17, 2005 Share Posted August 17, 2005 I do fear that once the Restaurants category has 598 different sub-categories under it, it may not be fun to look through. At that point I would hope that sub-sub-catagories might be created. So we'd see something like: Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Fine Dining Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Fast Food Directory Home > Places > Resturaunts > Buffets That would be something added when/if the need arises. That's right. when it gets bigger we'll restructure to accomodate them. You will also be able to search under, say, Restaurants and get everything underneath it no matter how deep it goes. Link to comment
Recommended Posts