Inappropriate Waymark Categories

[+Jake39]

.... and it would require "photos" too ????

[bootron]

Not really ON TOPIC, but what about cemeteries, plane crashe sites, cave drawing/fossil areas?

 

I started a thread on these. It's the same basic idea, should we waymark these? Geocaching is already taking heat in these areas from lawmakers.

 

Is a person with a GPS in a cemetary Waymarking or geocaching?

Neither.

[+mini cacher]

I'll throw my 2 geo-cents in. I am a firm believer that if you don't want to see it... don't look. If you don't want your kids to see it... pay attention to what they are doing (and maybe talk to them about it). But I hope that doesn't prevent me from getting to it if I want and without a million clicks. Video stores have a curtain between the good stuff and the other stuff (you decide which is which). They don't make you walk down a 5 mile maze of hallways and stairs, learn a secret hand shake and recite the last chapter of "War And Peace" to get there. Let's at least keep it simple.

 

If you are browsing the directory and you see categories that have titles that offend you, please don't click on that link and then try to blame anyone else for your bleeding eyes.

 

The only real issue I can see is what happens when you are searching and the "bad" things come up in the search. But again, if the Waymark listing offends you, don't click it. I can't imagine what you'd be searching for and accidentally get a strip club.

 

I would think that with some type of restrictions on the types of pictures and language that you allow on the site, there shouldn't be a need to do a whole lot of filtering etc.

 

I can understand people being offended by things... but does that mean they wish to deny that it even exists. I don't think I'd want my under age children GOING to a strip club, bar, etc but it really wouldn't bother me if they knew where one was... any more than if they knew where a church was. I'm pretty sure both are listed in the phone book... and some probably have a picture.

[+Gener_Lee]

What I'm reading is that most people don't really want the locations of strip clubs and 'houses of ill repute' and what not in there, but don't want them to be prevented from entering them under the grounds of 'who decides what is family friendly'.

In one area one thing may be seen as taboo, and in another area, something else may be.

What I would propose then is a setup where on creation of a new waymark category, the category owner sets up a series of attributes, things like indicating what might frighten people away from the listing (like sexual content, or violent nature etc). No restrictions on what you put in the database,

 

on the creation of a new account, all of the filters are set to on, i.e. you only see the perfectly benign family oriented stuff. Then to turn them off you have to go through some fairly deepish menu to enable the 'kinky' stuff.

Then when my little brother logs on, he's not looking at where all the strip clubs in Calgary are (heck, he's not going to 'decide' to turn them off).

 

I agree. No Censor, but the filtering idea would be a good thing. The hard thing will be figuring the filtering rules in a worldwide community

 

A combo of filtering and selective ignoring sounds like a good solution, but hard to carry out.

 

Also, one use of this category can help create a list of areas to advoid.

 

Finally I agree there is no call to enter the place to waymark it.

[+Crystal Sound]

Just to throw my $.01 into the account....

 

Censor, no.

 

Filter, yes, for those who choose.

 

As long as nobody is being harmed, I dont care. (Meaning, as long as a site is safe to visit, it should be allowed, IMHO.)

 

Edited to remain ON-topic.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Crystal Sound

[+ibycus]

Filter, yes, for those who choose.

As long as filters are on by default, and not blaringly obvious, I don't have a problem with that.

 

I for one don't want my 9 year old little brother comming here, and seeing that kind of thing without saying he wanted to... I also don't see a whole lot of reason for most of these kinds of categories anyways, but heck...

[+Jake39]

The solution is simple....Tag it for 'Premium Members' only!!! That way not everyone can have access to it unless they sign in first

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Ok, so to see the bottom 50% of categories, I need to be a premium member, and now you propose that I need to be a premium member just to see adult only categories. So far, I would not be tempted to buy a premium membership (assuming I was not a member already.) It sounds like premium memberships dont get perks, they get dregs.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

A proposal -

 

1. Anything goes; no absolute censoring.

2. Default is a benign level like ESRB's "Everyone" or "Everyone 10+".

3. Use at least 3 separate axes such as - sex, nudity, violence, maturity, etc. (I'm no expert at this.)

 

4. In everyone's "my profile", put 3 vertical lists with everything above the default level be grayed out until the person clicks an up-arrow, sorta like the popularity percent-filter.

 

For example the nudity one could be like:

 

7 ----

6 ----

5 ----

4 ----

3 ----

2 bathing suits

1 fully clothed

 

If someone clicked an associated up-arrow they would see:

 

7 ----

6 ----

5 ----

4 ----

3 suggestive poses

2 bathing suits

1 fully clothed

 

or some such, and may choose to go back down to bathing suits, making the "suggestive poses" disappear again. People would never even have to see what level 7 said, etc.

 

5. Each category manager would have a management page with the same axes to characterize the upper limits of their category.

 

Some of the ESRB flag words as well as concepts could be used for characterizing the axes and their levels.

[+az_pistolero]

Jeremy (et.al.), first of all, great job with the site, and for all the foresight!

 

Perhaps the thought of category filtering could be generalized to other uses. The attributes on a geocache (< 1 hour, kid friendly, wheelchair accessible, etc.) are available to Pocket Queries as content filters.

 

The ESRB ratings are a start. I'd suggest rather than using the ESRB grades, use the attributes that drive those gradings (violence, nudity, sex, blood, language, crude humor). This may be easier for category moderators to manage.

 

Users can make our own choices in our account preference filters.

 

Also, allow users to set some filters on the taxonomy, since there's attribute information implied in the path. I don't know how that's planned, so it's hard to make a suggestion here.

[+TeamMINI]

I would like to see some filth please! As a responsible deviant however I support the rights of others not to be exposed to my moral turpitude. Self censorship is best with waypoint and catagory owners self rating. Those failing to do so responsibly due to stupidity or a desire to offend others should be booted, sure they may create a new identity and try again but this should be rare and after some time get to be a tiresome game for them. I have a buddy I just intro-ed to caching and waypointing who wants to create a waypoint at his place of employment. He is a corrections officer, in order to log this one you would need to be a convicted fellon! My guess........not family friendly?

[+chstress53]

Thes could be considered Taboo by some;but I felt they needed a waymark

 

Museum of Burlesque This last one contains a wealth of striptease and exotic dance memorabilia.

I do agree with az_pistolero that

Users can make our own choices in our account preference filters.Red light Museum

The Red Light Museum of Course honors a Madame.of course.

Edited December 14, 2005 by chstress53

[bug and snake]

Seems to me that people need to take some responsibility for their own actions and the actions of their own children. If locations are categorized and the category labels are accurate then where is the problem? Much more than that and we are policing the thing. I feel that it is enough to keep the locations listed legal. Truth to tell, I don't quite know what would constitute an 'illegal location' anyhow. I am not saying that there are none, only that I can't think of one.

 

'Family friendly' as an expression, is close to PC in my mind and I don't like that - PC is spineless in the extreme. Parents need to have some responsibility for where the kids go on the net in the same way that they do in the physical world.

 

What this is leading up to is that my feeling on the matter is that the responsibility of this site is to categorize locations with as much accuracy as possible and allow the parents to do the rest.

 

Please note that I am looking at this only from the point of view of keeping kids away from places they are better out of. If any adult finds that some 'marks are offensive that is their problem and I do not want to see their limitations carried over to become mine by default. The whole thing is a matter of personal responsibility and 'personal' is the operative word. Don't push your limits on others and I will not force mine on you.

 

The practical way of working this is not something I can comment on but I feel that categories and a layer or two of sub-categories should be enough to do the job. Possibly with the 'adult' groups and sub groups labeled in red? If people then click on these and are offended it is their own fault.

[Lowsky]

sounds like "we" want "them" to do our parenting for us. if Johnny or Susie looks hard enough he/she will find questionable material. I do however think that after I hit a catagory or sub. that I wish I didn't I could block it for the future. This should be a general use feature not a members only.

[Lowsky]

'Family friendly' as an expression, is close to PC in my mind and I don't like that - PC is spineless in the extreme.  Parents need to have some responsibility for where the kids go on the net in the same way that they do in the physical world.

 

What this is leading up to is that my feeling on the matter is that the responsibility of this site is to categorize locations with as much accuracy as possible and allow the parents to do the rest.

 

  If any adult finds that some 'marks are offensive that is their problem and I do not want to see their limitations carried over to become mine by default.  The whole thing is a matter of personal responsibility and 'personal' is the operative word. Don't push your limits on others and I will not force mine on you.

 

Hear, Hear!!!!!! You said it better than I.And this is coming from a Born-again Christian.

[+Bill & Tammy]

I am still of the opinion that the "benchmark" for a waymark which may apply in this discussion as well is that is uniquely interesting to set it apart from things we see everday and from locations that are common knowledge. I hate to see it come to the point that I walk down the street and see half a dozen things I can log as waymarks.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+The Dreaded Jackals]

If people want to visit areas of an 'adult nature' they will... or won't. It is up to the individual parent, responsible adult, participant... etc. etc. to decide which forum he/she is going to visit or not visit. Nobody twists your arm to find a cache. BUT, if you should desire to offer adult oriented material in your cache, you should at a minimum be thoughtful enough to warn those who might not appreciate your cache in advance. My personal belief is that I hope that Geocaching is not yet another activity that is open to censorship because a few participants are not able to monitor themselves. In short, don't put out a cache that might offend a participant if you are not thoughtful enough to post a fair warning AND don't spoil a good time for those of 'us' who might enjoy a different brand of entertainment.