Jump to content

Recommended Posts

With respect to regional categories, I don't understand the Peer Review voting process for proposed categories. The Peer Review page has a Yea/Nay/Abstain vote which is targeted specifically at whether or not the proposed category meets three criteria, one of which is:

 

1. Global – The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category.

 

We are supposed to vote Yea/Nay/Abstain in response to the question "Does the category meet all three of these criteria?"

 

If the category isn't a global category, but is still a good category (for example, a regional historical marker category), we can't legitimately vote 'Yea' (it doesn't meet the Global criteria). But I don't want to vote against a good regional category.

 

So, is the idea that for good regional category proposals, we should vote 'abstain' and add comments?

Link to post

With respect to regional categories, I don't understand the Peer Review voting process for proposed categories. The Peer Review page has a Yea/Nay/Abstain vote which is targeted specifically at whether or not the proposed category meets three criteria, one of which is:

 

1. Global – The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category.

 

We are supposed to vote Yea/Nay/Abstain in response to the question "Does the category meet all three of these criteria?"

 

If the category isn't a global category, but is still a good category (for example, a regional historical marker category), we can't legitimately vote 'Yea' (it doesn't meet the Global criteria). But I don't want to vote against a good regional category.

 

So, is the idea that for good regional category proposals, we should vote 'abstain' and add comments?

 

I had the same question!

 

While I applaud the creation of global categories, there is no reason to reject regional ones. In fact, we need them!

 

I think the point is to make categories global when that is a feasible option rather than arbitrarily confining it to a region. This can often be done with the judicious use of variables.

 

So, I would like to see the wording of this modified in order to reflect what is already seemingly the current philosophy operating in Waymarking.

Link to post

We tried to address this question with the line:

 

A good category may not meet all of the requirements, but a great one will!

 

2 out of 3 is the idea here. If the category is appealing and prevalent (the "Goldilocks standard", not too many or too few) I would vote for it. I'll try to work on a better way of saying that in the voting guidelines.

Link to post

Ok, I understand better what you are getting at. I was thrown off by the fact that in two places on the page, it specifically mentioned meeting all three criteria.

 

So the standard for a Yes vote should be that the category meets the second and third criteria (Prevalence and Standout) and it represents the most appropriate targeting with respect to being either regional or global in scope.

 

Perhaps a better wording for the first criteria would be along the lines of:

 

"Is the category positioned appropriately with respect to being either regional or global in nature? In other words, if the category is regional in scope, should it be?"

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to post

Is there a limit to the number of times someone can vote on a proposed category while it's in the review process?

 

Edit: I think I answered my own question. I just voted in the Canadian National Historic Sites category proposal, and I see now that it is no longer visible to me in the Peer Review list.

 

So the answer appears to be one vote per proposal, which makes complete sense.

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to post

Are there more Category proposals listed beyond mine?

 

I can't see any others, but based upon the above statements, it would seem that there must be more than just the one.

 

It would be hard to believe that there is only one so far.

 

:grin: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post

Are there more Category proposals listed beyond mine?

 

I can't see any others, but based upon the above statements, it would seem that there must be more than just the one.

 

It would be hard to believe that there is only one so far.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

I'm still not seeing any proposals besides yours, but I think you were more organized than most.

 

I suspect that many of the other proposals are probably still working their way through the category creation and 'Call for Officer Vote on Category' stages, but I think we'll be seeing more proposals popping up in the Peer Review list pretty soon.

 

It was your proposed category that I was referring to in my Peer Review Process topic. After the clarification from OpinioNate, I voted a "Yea" to your category. I also submitted a comment about the photo requirements for visits (just mentioned that so when you see the comment you'll know it was from me).

 

Edit: spelling

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to post

Are there more Category proposals listed beyond mine?

 

Yours is officially the first category added to the peer review process. Congrats!

 

Bootron reports he was "beaming" when he saw it in the queue. Like a proud father...

Link to post

B) Gosh guys! Thanks for the support, and thanks also to Bootron and OpinioNate and Jeremy too for all the efforts.

 

I haven't looked at anything else yet, I had this screen open when I left for work so I just refreshed it.

 

Off to see what else has developed today!

 

B) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

After receiving an email regarding one of the possible Photo items... I will be removing the option of a Beaver as one of the things that can be in the photo to count for a visit.

 

I was just trying to find items that were of a Canadian flavour and well.. you get the idea. I just didn't want to use GPS, but at the same time didn't want vacation photos either.

 

B) Sometimes I don't know what I'm thinking either B)

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

After receiving an email regarding one of the possible Photo items... I will be removing the option of a Beaver as one of the things that can be in the photo to count for a visit.

Just curious - are you able to make modifications to the category while in the Peer Review state, or is it locked?

Link to post

Nope... it seems locked.

 

I think that is so I can't make changes after people said "YEA". That makes sense and it wouldn't be fair. It would also make people say "Whoa.. I wanna change my vote"

 

I also have a typo in it. Can't fix that either right now.

 

S'alright?

 

S'alright!

 

B) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Nope... it seems locked.

 

I think that is so I can't make changes after people said "YEA". That makes sense and it wouldn't be fair. It would also make people say "Whoa.. I wanna change my vote"

Sounds right.

 

I've got a category proposal in the 'Call for Officer Vote on Category' state and it's locked as well. If I could just get my Officers to quit slackin', we'd could move along to Peer Review. B)

Link to post

On the category review page (the page where you cast your vote for a proposed category) I see that there is no link to the group that will manage that category.

 

Should there be?

 

I'm thinking long term here - this is clearly not an issue which needs to be addressed immediately, if it's even an issue at all. But I see two ways to look at this:

 

1) There should NOT be a link to the group on the voting page. The category proposal should be strong enough on its own to generate enough Yea votes to pass. It shouldn't matter who is putting forth the proposal, it's either a good category, or it's not.

 

or

 

2) There SHOULD BE a link to the group on the voting page. As a voter, I am entitled to know something about the particular group of individuals who will be the caretakers of the category I am voting on. For example, would I vote the same way if members of the group have a history of poor category management?

Link to post

Each time I vote on a category proposal, it vanishes. Even though I've already cast a vote, I still might want to see to the proposal.

 

Can a change be made so that once we vote on a category proposal, we can still see the proposal (just not vote again)?

 

Edit: missing word

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to post

 

1) There should NOT be a link to the group on the voting page. The category proposal should be strong enough on its own to generate enough Yea votes to pass. It shouldn't matter who is putting forth the proposal, it's either a good category, or it's not.

 

 

This is the approach we're taking. Not knowing who manages the category means you will vote on the merits of the idea only.

Link to post
Jeremy Posted Today, 02:46 PM

 

This is the approach we're taking. Not knowing who manages the category means you will vote on the merits of the idea only.

 

That's probably the right answer... I can be honest enough with myself to know that I would view the proposal differently depending on who it came from. That happens enough in the other Groundspeak game, why should I expect differently here? <_<

 

Not really a vindictive type of person, but I can see how this could be abused... which leads to angst... and it never gets better from there.

 

I can see it now... "NAY.... for spite's sake!"

 

Good call

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Each time I vote on a category proposal, it vanishes. Even though I've already cast a vote, I still might want to see to the proposal.

 

Can a change be made so that once we vote on a category proposal, we can still see the proposal (just not vote again)?

Any thoughts on this?

Link to post

Each time I vote on a category proposal, it vanishes. Even though I've already cast a vote, I still might want to see to the proposal.

 

Can a change be made so that once we vote on a category proposal, we can still see the proposal (just not vote again)?

Any thoughts on this?

 

We'll change it so you can view categories which you've already voted on, while differentiating between those you haven't. I share your desire to re-review categories after voting, if nothing else but to see what will potentially be accepting new waymarks soon.

Link to post

Each time I vote on a category proposal, it vanishes. Even though I've already cast a vote, I still might want to see to the proposal.

 

Can a change be made so that once we vote on a category proposal, we can still see the proposal (just not vote again)?

Any thoughts on this?

 

We'll change it so you can view categories which you've already voted on, while differentiating between those you haven't. I share your desire to re-review categories after voting, if nothing else but to see what will potentially be accepting new waymarks soon.

Thank you, Nate!

Link to post

Off the wall question on peer review. Is there any particular time of the week when it is better to submit a category for peer review, given the time constraint on it? I have Animal Memorials ready for peer review, but will it get the votes it needs to be approved if I submit it on a friday night when cachers/ markers are likely to disappear for a weekends hunting? Would it be better to wait until Sun or Mon before submitting a category for peer review?

Link to post

I'd consider the votes more of an informality. As long as you did the prior work if the category doesn't have any gotchas it will be listed. The input we (Groundspeak) looks for is more to help us do a reality check on the category for things like duplication and to provide you feedback from the community regarding changes you may want to make to your category. So any time of the week should work. 3 days allows for some weekend overlap as well.

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...