Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I took a visit to the Waymarking site to see how easy to use and interesting to me that it would be.

 

I was totally suprised that people would/could name a Waymark of a public park or garden - like the renowned Niagara Parks Botanical Garden (WM8GG) - after themselves - as if it were theirs. How arrogant.

 

To whom would I complain about this practice?

Link to post

I took a visit to the Waymarking site to see how easy to use and interesting to me that it would be.

 

I was totally suprised that people would/could name a Waymark of a public park or garden - like the renowned Niagara Parks Botanical Garden (WM8GG) - after themselves - as if it were theirs. How arrogant.

 

To whom would I complain about this practice?

After reading your comment, I thought that this would bug me, also. However, after looking at the Waymark page, I discovered that it didn't. I don't have a problem with how they did it.

 

It's more like 'The Blue Quasar presents Niagara Falls'. It's not really angsty stuff, in my opinion. Its not like he's claiming to have created it. :lol:

Link to post

I took a visit to the Waymarking site to see how easy to use and interesting to me that it would be.

 

I was totally suprised that people would/could name a Waymark of a public park or garden - like the renowned Niagara Parks Botanical Garden (WM8GG) - after themselves - as if it were theirs. How arrogant.

 

To whom would I complain about this practice?

After reading your comment, I thought that this would bug me, also. However, after looking at the Waymark page, I discovered that it didn't. I don't have a problem with how they did it.

 

It's more like 'The Blue Quasar presents Niagara Falls'. It's not really angsty stuff, in my opinion. Its not like he's claiming to have created it. :lol:

 

Maybe I am missing something, but it sure looks like they listed are "his" gardens from my search results.

 

If you do a search under the category Botanical Gardens (from my home location) it comes up listed this way and it certainly appears to me (and I am sure others) that the name of the botanical gardens is "Qxxxx's Botanical Gardens" . There are some other's that appear to be named after people too, but that is the actual names of it e.g. Allen Gardens.

Link to post

I don't much care what the title is. "Quasy found lotsa pretty flowers here" would have worked fine. I can read the description to find out the formal name. Less rules = good. We didn't force virtual and locationless caches to follow a similar naming convention -- why add rules here?

 

Having visited this spectacular garden and the nearby Butterfly Museum, providing a delightful afternoon's fun for my family, I am grateful that people took the time to write up these waymarks so that others can learn where to find them. Coordinates are all I need to do that.

Link to post

I agree with the original post. I don't like it. Have you e-mailed BQ and told him that you don't like it?

 

In practice this kind of thing is going to be next to impossible to enforce, so I can understand not making a rule about it. Personally I wouldn't allow it in my category though (in fact I've denied a number of waymarks specifically for title, in all cases the waymarker in question has been more than happy to rename it).

The way I look at it is, these places have real names. We are documenting the places. If at all possible we should use the real names to do so. The title field of the waymark could easily later be used as the title for a POI in a GPS. I don't want the Botanical Gardens showing up as "Quasy's" on my GPS.

 

In all honesty he's just having a bit of fun, but I don't think its a particularly good idea.

 

Just my two cents anyways.

Link to post
I don't much care what the title is. "Quasy found lotsa pretty flowers here" would have worked fine. I can read the description to find out the formal name. Less rules = good. We didn't force virtual and locationless caches to follow a similar naming convention -- why add rules here?

 

Having visited this spectacular garden and the nearby Butterfly Museum, providing a delightful afternoon's fun for my family, I am grateful that people took the time to write up these waymarks so that others can learn where to find them. Coordinates are all I need to do that.

 

I haven't done too many virtuals or earth caches, but those that I have done have been named with the significant person or place as part of the name - not the cache placer. I liked doing those types of caches that helped me learn more about a famous person or interesting place.

 

There is another thread where Jeremy mentions using filters to "separate the wheat from the chaff". From my perspective the Waymarking site looses any appeal for me if it is difficult to differentiate places, whose names that I might recognize, from those places that may interest me, but have someone place their name instead of the actual name of the site.

 

In other words you might feel miffed (or confused) if I had been the first to list Maxima's White House. I don't think that you would want the world to think that was actually THE name of the White House.

 

edit: spelling

Edited by Maxima
Link to post

I found a locationless cache called "Heavy Metal." Did I search around for nightclubs with loud music? No, I read the cache page and learned that the title referred to old navy warships. I found virtual caches with names like "577," "Traffic Jam," "I ain't licked yet!", "Baby got Back! Whoa!", "Cache Twenty-Two," "Coffee Boy," "Life has many of these," and "Bent out of shape." In most cases the title became an obvious "play on words" once you arrived at the location. Some waymarkers would prefer to preserve some of the "surprise factor" that virtual caches afforded. And that is the danger of rules and procedures -- they can have unintended consequences. I don't think we should force waymarkers to rename their waymarks if approved by the category managers, any more so than we should force those virtual cache owners to adopt accurate names like "Anytown Gardens," "Sculpture of Piled up cars," "Giant Ice Cream Cone," etc.

 

Personally I can't see myself turning down an "Iron Furnace Ruins" submission because it was titled "Joe's favorite backwoods iron furnace" instead of "1803 McAllister Furnace Ruins." But another category manager might feel differently, like ibycus posted. I respect his right to have a different opinion. My management group for PA Historic Markers might agree upon a convention requiring that the waymark title must match the marker title -- or not. So long as the rules are disclosed upfront, it's then up to the waymarker to meet the requirements.

Edited by The Leprechauns
Link to post

Well the reason I was doing that was for possible future search options.

 

If you were on the other Groundspeak game site right now and typed in "QUASY" you would get 18 caches listed. And I've archived nearly a dozen with QUASY in the title too. I don't see anyone complaining there, and I've been caching since 2001.

 

I don't own the Gardens, or Ontario Historic Plaque or Berry Picking or any of the other 45 and counting Waymarks I've listed. I do however own the Waymark.

 

If you really believe that anyone that searches for a Waymark thinks that I own a Botanical Garden, they really aren't too aware. Obviously you don't think that I own the garden.

 

As for the argument that Niagara Parks Commission would be bothered by this naming of a Waymark... are you kidding me? If I named it "Cute little kitten" or "Jumping Bean" would that be better?

 

Let me guess... you want to institute a strict naming structure for Waymarking... remove all creativity and individuality...

 

Sorry, I'll name things how I want, and as long as the Category Manager approves it, then it's fine the way it is.

 

But if you want me to add "Presents" to the names, that I can do... but it will take a while, and frankly... it's a low priority.

 

What's in a name? I dunno... but we seek caches with unusual names, or other identifiers in the name... this is not different.

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

If you're looking for official guidance, you might find a little in the Waymarking FAQ:

 

How should I name my category?

 

You want to name your category in a way that clearly describes the waymarks contained within it. Try to avoid puns and plays on words. If your category represents lighthouses, you wouldn’t want to call it “Light My Way”. The better choice would be simply “Lighthouses”. Waymarks, not categories, are better suited for creative titles.

 

 

Quasy's naming convention, to me, falls within the scope of a "creative title". I don't think McDonald's would mind if I titled a waymark "Nate's Guilty Pleasure".

Link to post

(My apology for this length of this post.)

 

I suggest it would be a desirable objective for the Waymarking site to become THE location on the web to provide a reference of places of interest, complete with co-ordinates, compiled by the co-operative effort people around the world in a way similar to Wikipedia. (I am sure THAT site would not be as useful if those who use it as a reference were presented with articles named after the person who initiated the article rather than the subject to which it refers.)

 

Furthermore, I believe that the usefulness (and credibility) of this site will diminish among users of the web if 'cute' naming becomes the norm and a website where ego can reign supreme.

 

It seems to me that most Waymarks indicate a place of interest that has done quite well over the years with its own "brand". This applies to the Niagara Parks Botanical gardens, the Pyramids in Egypt, the Whitehouse in Washington or the thousands of other places around the world.

 

The point of virtual caches was to take you to a place that you might not be aware of and provide a bit of a revelation or interesting history etc. The 'creative' naming in those instances could have been used to help to disguise the surprise that awaited when you found the site.

 

The Waymarking site could be superior to virtual caches in that waymarks are categorized to allow one to plan a day of historic forts or botanical gardens or art galleries or whatever might be of interest and don't need a name that disguises what you are looking for.

 

In my opinion, I think that most users of Waymarking would want to search the site in an objective way, rather than search for places listed by a particular person. To support this contention, I can only add that when I did a search of botanical gardens within 100 km of my location only one was named after the listing person versus the actual name of the gardens.

 

For those who want to be creative with naming, Geocaching allows you to be as creative and original as they want in naming a cache. Bravo to those whose creative naming brings a smile when one reads about the cache. As well, on the Geocaching website I often see series named after highways, for example, so that when I take a trip it will be easy to locate caches along that highway. If a cache hider thinks that adding their handle to all of their placements provides a service to seekers, then go for it -- on Geocaching.com.

 

To summarize my opinion: being the first person to list a place of interest on the Waymarking site does not confer the right to name it after oneself.

Edited by Maxima
Link to post

I'd prefer to see listings without embellishments like pseudo-ownership. I can see the thought that you can search on that sort of thing but we will allow you to search for other people's waymarks in the future which makes that more of a workaround than a workable idea.

 

It is my hope that with people intent on creating good categories there will be better standardization as each category improves and receives more waymarks. Additionally we do plan to allow for suggested changes to waymarks that can be corrected by the leaders - in time.

 

I expect that what you are seeing now is a large pair of shoes and people are just sticking their toes in. Give people a little wiggle room and I'm sure it'll be sorted out in time.

 

At least we didn't start with tag clouds and go from there. Although we do plan to add this kind of functionality it is definitely overused at this point. More structure, added community and increased areas of communication will go far to making Waymarking a successful web site.

Link to post

So let me see if I have this right

 

With a couple of exceptions, I'm the only person placing Waymarks within the areas of Niagara and Hamilton (approximately 30 miles wide), and have been busting my butt since September trying to promote Waymarking as a useful, fun and all that jazz alternative... and you are getting bent out of shape because I include Quasy in the name of the Botanical Garden Waymark that I took the time to create, research and visit?

 

And for that, you object?

 

There is only ONE Botanical Garden listed within 100 kilometers of Toronto... and the only thing that upsets you is that Quasy is in the name? For that, you won't visit it... but if I remove "Quasy" then it's worthwhile logging it?

 

Guess you don't really want to visit the Botanical Garden.

 

You started off referring to it as "arrogant"... and Jeremy suggested maybe if you asked nicely.... you went on to add "Ego" into it....

 

Well done :unsure: Really inspires me to change it just to passify you.

 

So much for Waymarking being a fun pasttime with less rules... or solving the problems of Virtual Caches and Locationless Caches.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

Link to post

I enjoy looking at Quasy's waymarks, too. I haven't been to Canada in several years, and the more I read, the more likely I am to plan a roadtrip. There is also the matter of the casinos in Niagara Falls...

 

But even more so, I enjoy reading The Blue Quasar's opinions as we try to figure out what to do with this big, largely empty website that is so full of potential. I may not always agree with him, though I usually do, like in this thread. But a respectfully expressed opinion makes me think, and sometimes change my own mind.

 

I recognize the right of the OP to advocate a naming convention. There is some merit to it, like in a standardized category such as my PA historic markers. It is something to keep in mind. If the opinion were expressed in a less strident, more collegial manner, I'd accord more weight and respect to it.

Link to post

In general I personally don't care if someone freelances with the name of the waymark. If it is in a category that interests me I will go visit it no matter what the name is. However there are a few categories that I would find it in poor taste to get too cute with the name for example the category of Medal of Honor recipient graves. Another thing to consider when naming waymarks is that waymarks will viewed by non-Waymarking public when using search engines. For example do a google search on stephen hempstead grave revolutionary and the top item is Waymarking.

Edited by BruceS
Link to post
  • 4 weeks later...

After reviewing the requirements of other Categories, as well as being declined on several due to my inclusion of "Quasy's" in the name I have agreed to edit all of my Waymarks to a standard cataloguing method as demonstrated by most people. All of my Waymarks have been renamed prior to this posting, to ensure my compliance with the Category Manager's wishes that asked me to change as well as those that didn't. That allowed me to make the ones I own more orderly.

 

In keeping with the predominate naming convensions, I have also update all three of my Catagories to use similar naming guidelines.

 

While it was intended for searching methods, primarily, but as many people have expressed a desire to utilize a method for cataloguing and maintaining a more professional appearance.

 

I hope that everyone that has placed or will place Waymarks into my Categories can accept this transistion, as I have had to accept a similar transition to the other Categories naming conventions.

 

Sorry if this causes any discord, it is not my intention to do so. I too like things orderly and this I hope will help create a clean appearance in my Categories.

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post

After reviewing the requirements of other Categories, as well as being declined on several due to my inclusion of "Quasy's" in the name I have agreed to edit all of my Waymarks to a standard cataloguing method as demonstrated by most people. All of my Waymarks have been renamed prior to this posting, to ensure my compliance with the Category Manager's wishes that asked me to change as well as those that didn't. That allowed me to make the ones I own more orderly.........

Sorry if this causes any discord, it is not my intention to do so. I too like things orderly and this I hope will help create a clean appearance in my Categories.

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

 

Quasy, I like you.

Link to post

Quasar... I've always thought of you as my good twin... and as such I would like to say you are everything I am! Thusly I can surely say that you are very egotistical, however I don't care what you name your waymarks. To be honest I think the name of waymarks is fairly unimportant as long as the waymark fits the category.... (and you try to at least be a little descriptive in the title... hmmm we need a water rides so that we can eventually get "Quasy's Plunge" or some demented sounding name lol)

 

In the spirit of things, if you ever make a video game arcade waymark, be my guest to mark it as Quasy's Fun Spot!

 

Ok now seriously I want to start a category for "Quasy Stuff"!!!! Anyone wanna be an officer? LOL

Link to post

I'm the 'good twin'? :D I think there are many that might argue that point.

 

However, while I can see both sides of the coin, I am looking to fall in line with the majority. That coupled with being egotistical (or as my associates refer me.... 'anal retentive') then I must expect the same from other Category Managers.

 

How could I expect compliance, if I don't expect the same belief from the Category Managers (whether they expect it or not) that I attempt to place Waymarks with. Rules are made to be followed, although things can get updated from time to time as warranted. Either way... we all have our expectations, but the Category Manager is the final word on the subject respective to their Category.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

I'm the 'good twin'? :huh: I think there are many that might argue that point.

 

However, while I can see both sides of the coin, I am looking to fall in line with the majority. That coupled with being egotistical (or as my associates refer me.... 'anal retentive') then I must expect the same from other Category Managers.

 

How could I expect compliance, if I don't expect the same belief from the Category Managers (whether they expect it or not) that I attempt to place Waymarks with. Rules are made to be followed, although things can get updated from time to time as warranted. Either way... we all have our expectations, but the Category Manager is the final word on the subject respective to their Category.

 

:P The Blue Quasar

 

So no Quasy's Fun Spot or other needlessly vulgar category name? too bad=/

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...