Wow Waymarkers Group

8k · March 31, 2006

I invite anyone who feels that Waymarking is not giving them the experience of hiding or finding virtual caches to join the Wow Waymarkers group.

The "Wow Waymarkers" group will develop ideas for a Waymarking category to provide a Waymarking experience more like a virtual cache. We will look at ways to create waymarks that are challenging to find as well as having a "Wow" quality that makes them stand out from ordinary waymarks. If we come to some consensus, we will propose a new category for these "Wow" waymarks or whatever we decide to call them.

This is not a place to whine about not being able to create new virtuals on Geocaching.com. The idea is to find ways to get a similar experience in Waymarking. It is possible that the group will decide that we don't need a special category for virtuals on Waymarking.com. But if we decide that is the way to go it probably won't be the Wow Waymarks I proposed last August. Among the topics we will discuss are: How does one define "wow"? Is the verification question required?

9.4k · March 31, 2006

You may need to recruit in the geocaching forums for this one.

2.1k · March 31, 2006

I'm eager to see what kind of success this category has. For my part, I hope it gains some legs without causing the controversy created on occasion when one person's "wow" was another's "ho hum". This should be interesting!

1.6k · April 1, 2006

So what you are proposing basically is that you will be the Reviewer for Virtual Caches anywhere in the World?

That is WOW in and of itself...

This could be the bridge that Geocachers need to see what could be described as Virtual Caching 2.0

Good luck... I think it's a great idea, hope the ride isn't too rough. I think we all know how subjective this could be.

List too much and it looses its appeal... list too little and people may revolt.

I look forward to reading your proposal

The Blue Quasar

April 6, 2006

I joined....

In the spirit of the recent discussion on the [relative] merits of Waymarking, I'd like to suggest that all waymark categories (and their waymarks) be subjected to the "wow" test, but that's really up to the "community".

1.6k · April 6, 2006

I joined....

In the spirit of the recent discussion on the [relative] merits of Waymarking, I'd like to suggest that all waymark categories (and their waymarks) be subjected to the "wow" test, but that's really up to the "community".

No. The "wow" factor caused more negative feelings than anything. Most of the Waymarks I do are in two categories Revolutionary War Veteran Graves which are fairly rare in my area of the country and Medal of Honor Resting Places. Sorry if these don't have enough "wow" factor for others, it is what I enjoy.

I have no problem with this category in itself... just glad I am not the one determining the "wow"

~edit~what can I say I can't spell

Edited April 6, 2006 by BruceS

8k · April 6, 2006

I joined....

In the spirit of the recent discussion on the [relative] merits of Waymarking, I'd like to suggest that all waymark categories (and their waymarks) be subjected to the "wow" test, but that's really up to the "community".

No. The "wow" factor caused more negative feelings than anything. Most of the Waymarks I do are in two categories Revolutionary War Veteran Graves which are fairly rare in my area of the country and Medal of Honor Resting Places. Sorry if these don't have enough "wow" factor for others, it is what I enjoy.

I have no problem with this category in itself... just glad I am not the one determining the "wow"

BruceS is exactly right. Someone interested in Revolutionary War Veterans graves has all the "wow" they need in just finding one of these graves. Elsewhere, Leprechauns has remarked that he wants to find all the Pennsylvania Historical markers even when there is nothing left to see at the site but the marker itself. And I won't hold it against someone who is interested in visiting McDonald's restaurants. Waymarking is cool because you only need to decide if the category is of interest to you. If you like the category, determining which waymarks are worthy is far less subjective. If you don't like the category, you can ignore it.

The difference with virtual caches is that you might visit something you would never have known about otherwise. The "wow" was the joy of learning about something new. The first task of the "Wow" waymarkers will be to determine if there is some definition of "wow" we can agree on. Even then we may decide not to have a "Wow" Waymarking category. Perhaps, we will award a "Wow" designation to waymarks in other categories.

I apologize that I haven't gotten the discussion started withing the "Wow Waymarkers" group. I have been very busy at work lately. And my weekends have been full as well (last weekend I hosted my first geocaching event, and this coming weeking I am going camping as a part of another event). Feel free to express your ideas in this thread and as soon as I get a chance I'll contact the members of the group, ask for volunteers to become officers, and get the discussion going.

9.4k · April 13, 2006

There are plenty of members now. Why hasn't there been any progress with officers and category proposal?

April 14, 2006

I am very happy to see you forming this new category. For me, geocaching's main attraction was to find a place that you would otherwise not have known about. The actual "treasure" has been of little interest, for me it was location, location, location. When I travel, I will usually check for geocaches in the area, and am particularly attracted to ones placed in "amazing" spots that I would not have otherwise known about. For instance, last week I was in Venice Italy and traveled to the island of Murano, home of the areas world famous glass blowing artists, a short boat ride across the Venecian lagoon. There was a standard geocache hidden on a side street one block off the main thoroughfare. Finding this cache did not add in any way to my experience in Murano. However, there was a second geocache, (called Reserectus), which led me to a cemetery on the far side of the island. There I found a beautiful cemetery, with headstones made of glass, a unique, beautiful and serene place that I never would have known about were it not for the foresight of a fellow geocacher who thought that this was the kind of place that other cachers should experience. My wife, who often rolls her eyes at the thought of chasing another box filled with trinkets, conceded that this indeed was a unique spot and was thankful that we had been led there.

So, I hope that this new Wow category will give those of us who are looking for unique locations, of all kinds, anywhere in the world, the chance to both post and find them once again, as we did with my favorite geocaching category- The Virtual Cache.

-Birdhead

PS what exactly stands in the way of just getting this category up and running? I have already prepared a virtual on the island of Burano and am ready to go!

1.7k · April 14, 2006

Wow = something unique to an area, something attractive.

Thats a start, please add to the definition.

1.7k · April 14, 2006

Wow = a place that makes you say wow.

Cheesy, but again, its a start.

This could be a good category. We should admit it is going to be arbitrary to the officers in the group about what makes a wow and what doesnt. But since most waymarks can fit into any category, then this one should be just for those outstanding waymarks that have unique things or places. Much as I love historic markers, this isnt the place for them.

I have one I could add to this. Currently I have a cache, Rx: GPS prn, in a unique little park. The 5 acre park, planted with local native desert plants, is filled with sculpture that tells a story of a rattlesnake and his friends. This would be wow in that it is unique, it blends landscape with art and storytelling. It is a popular cache too. Many people have lingered or returned and brought their kids along to see this unique park.

1.7k · April 14, 2006

Shoves taxes aside and continues...

Each wow waymark will have to justify its inclusion in the category in the private note to the category management.

Ok, this should be enough to get the ball rolling on this one.

1.6k · April 14, 2006

Jeremy Posted Yesterday, 09:41 AM
There are plenty of members now. Why hasn't there been any progress with officers and category proposal?

I imagine it must be quite a challenge to find the correct wording so people will know what does and does not qualify for inclusion in this Category.

While I am making the effort to not form any opinions or speculate on the success or failure of this proposal, no matter what happens it will be a learning experience for all.

Probably a lot of Geocaching Reviewers will be watching this one unfold too... and will history repeat itself, or will there be a brave new world?

Either way, the pressure on tozainamboku will be pretty intense.

After having fought Cache-Tech for years regarding Virtuals... I no longer can think of a suitable example that actually makes me go "WOW" that cannot be Categorized beyond this proposal. I guess it's a cross-listing thing then!

<_< The Blue Quasar

9.4k · April 14, 2006

Well, officers haven't been elected yet. soo not much has gone on so far.

1.6k · April 14, 2006

That's not a very promising sign

Oh wait... I'm not forming any opinions or speculate on the success or failure of this proposal... right right.. I gotta remember that

<_< The Blue Quasar

1.7k · April 15, 2006

Why not have cross listing? No reason I can see why this cant be an offbeat category just for unique waymarks even if they are listed in other "appropriate" categories.

No takers on what defines wow?

1.6k · April 15, 2006

Personally I have no problem with cross listing.... but from what I can tell based upon the descriptions provided... the Category Owner SHOULD.

If a person gets a Waymark approved in this proposed WOW Category, let's say... a "Revolving McDonald's Restaurant"

The impression I get is that you aren't supposed to know what you will find until you get there..... then someone else lists the same McDonald's in that Category

Now anyone that looks for nearby Waymarks can see both... one is vague, the other specific.

<_< The Blue Quasar

April 15, 2006

Personally, what I'm hoping for is a category of waymarks that causes one to exclaim "Wow-this is great, I'm so glad I came here!"

-Birdhead

1.7k · April 16, 2006

We just came back from an event cache where several new caches were posted. These caches had NO information about them, so it was a surprise when you got there. One cache was a 9/11 memorial. This had a definite WOW factor. The appeal on the emotional level played a large part of our enjoyment of the cache.

The element of surprise and the appeal to the emotion are definitely wow factors, for waymarks too.

8k · April 16, 2006

Sorry I haven't done anything with this group yet. I have been very busy at work and I was involved in two geocaching events the past two weekends. I did take some time to talk with local geocachers about Waymarking and about what makes a virtual "Wow". It seems that getting a definition of "Wow" that everyone will agree on is probably asking for too much. What I would like to do is to come up with something a little narrower but that could be used for waymarks that are a little out of the ordinary.

1) What makes a location unique, out-of-the-ordinary, or interesting?

I got input from some geocachers that they liked virtuals that took them to some place they never knew about. It seems a well know location is less interesting than one you never heard of. It's almost like the less known a place is, the more the "Wow".

On the other hand, it can't be too ordinary. Perhaps if there are enough places like this one it would be better to have a category for those.

2) Should we allow waymarks that belong in other categories to be listed in the "Wow" category as well?

I like the idea of people who might not be interested in another category being able to visit interesting places because these are in the Wow category. But it would need to have it's own "wow" quality beyond that of other places in the other category.

3) Should there be verification requirements for visiting a "Wow" waymark?

My opinion was that virtuals had a geocaching quality because you needed to search for the answer to the verification question. I was suprised that other cachers, didn't feel this was necessary for something to make a good virtual.

4) What's a better name to call this besides "Wow"?

We probably will need to reach a consensus on item 1) first before we come up with a name for it.

8k · April 25, 2006

I haven’t gotten as much input on what makes a good wow waymark as I had hoped. So far the best I have are:

1. You should learn something.

2. It should be challenging.

As far as learning something, this is already the concept behind Earthcaches - where you would learn something about geology or Earth science. Perhaps we should have Ecocaches to learn about ecology and biology, Historycaches to learn about history, and Culturecaches to learn about art and culture. .

It is just as hard to define challenging as “wow”. To some this means that the location is out-of-the-way and requires a hike or an off-highway drive. To others it might just mean that there is a verification question and you need to find the answers at the location.

Perhaps what really makes for “wow” is simply learning something is there that you wouldn’t have known about otherwise. Listing Old Faithful gyser in Yellowstone would not be very “Wow”, but there might be other locations in Yellowstone that don’t get visited as often. This category could be a way to advertise things you wouldn’t have seen otherwise. By limiting this to locations that are less known, the “Wow” factor would increase.

If we agree that the category would be for places that you wouldn’t know about otherwise, perhaps a better name would be “Secret Spots” or “Neglected Locales”. It definitely needs more work to have quality control. Otherwise every lampost in the Wal-Mart parking lot that doesn’t have a geocache would be a Neglected Locale <_< . Maybe requiring a challenge or learning something more than that it’s there is necessary to complete the definition.

I'm still looking for at least one more volunteer to be an officer.

Edited April 25, 2006 by tozainamboku

1.7k · April 25, 2006

Wow to me is showing me someplace or something unexpected and enjoyable. Showing me something unique, something hidden or just not something I would likely find on my own. I dont think it necessarily has to be a hike or out of the way. I think perhaps these wow waymarks should be things not included in other categories.

Examples of WOW:

The cemetery in Venice with glass grave markers. Im fascinated by that one. A place in the Andes where they have reed boats with heads of mythical creatures. (There is a virtual cache there with photos.) A native plant garden in Scottsdale that combines nature walk with storytelling and sculpture. (My cache Rx: GPS prn is in that garden.)

Since Waymarking lists many things, and many more listings as people come to the site, wow waymarks should hold to a high standard. Or should this category also include not-so-wow-waymarks-but-still-waymarks-that-have-the-element-of-surprise?

April 25, 2006

You could call the category "Hidden Gems", as this to me is the WOW factor. Sometimes there are places that are unique, beautiful, or interesting that are not widely known about and it is these that people can share with us all.

April 25, 2006

I agree with Tsegi Mike, and Royles, the Wow category should bring you to a place that you otherwise would not have known about. The Reserectus Virtual cache in the cemetary on Murano, near Venice is a great example. There is no way I would have ever known about this gem of a cemetary, a great spot in and of itself, let alone the glass headstones without this cache. My wife and I came there and said "Wow, this is great, we're so glad someone showed us this". The criterion could be as simple as "is this worth going out of your way to look for?" For a lampost at a Walmart parking lot- NO! A glass headstone on a hidden cemetary on Murano Island near Venice- Yes!!

April 25, 2006

"Wow, this is great, we're so glad someone showed us this". The criterion could be as simple as "is this worth going out of your way to look for?" For a lampost at a Walmart parking lot- NO! A glass headstone on a hidden cemetary on Murano Island near Venice- Yes!!

I like the idea of the wow category, as I'm sure a lot of people... but the WoW tree category I think got turned down just because of the vagueness of such a category... for geocaching it seemed to be ok to have this vagueness... for Waymarking it doesn't seem as ok... people want to know what type of thing they are looking for and this is a problem with vague wording.

At any rate I'll join as an officer.

Edit - As a side note I do think it is interesting that even though wow categories will get knocked down due to vagueness... I think it is also ironic that it'd probably be much more difficult to actually get a waymark in this category than others... not because of its vagueness, but more because it is likely more strict on being interesting. In reality, you could likely create a Wow Subcategory for every category on Waymarking.com.... WoW McDonald's... the most interesting McDonald's to go to... this might be a more worthy endeavor to maybe get tech in categories to allow for a best of list of each category... (still might not get ideas like glass cemetaries or what not into Waymarking but might be a good idea...)

Edited April 25, 2006 by Razak

April 25, 2006

Others have already touched on the major points that define "Wow" for me, but I think the primary characteristic is the "unexpected" quality of the location. That unexpected quality can arise from the location itself (a natural wonder), the story behind the location (so that's where that happened), or the sheer labor that someone put into creating the location (I recall a castle being constructed in the Rockies over a period of years by a single guy with no help out of local stones and mortar). I expect a nice view when I go into the mountains, I don't expect to see a multi-turreted castle that's a labor of years by a single eccentric fellow.

Besides the unexpected quality, I'd like to see a "spectacular" quality in most cases. While an unusual flower might be an interesting sight, it won't usually make me go "wow". I don't know if size matters directly, but I can't come up with any "wow" candidates that didn't give me room to wander around a little.

Cross-listing? Certainly! I don't plan to go looking for "wow" gold in the McDonalds franchise category. A gold nugget would be lost in the franchised sand and never found at all. The purpose of this category is in no way diminished by having the same item listed in a more extensive category because of one of its more mundane characteristics. We OUGHT to mine other categories for the really amazing stuff that would get lost because it's buried in with a lot of other things of interest only to certain groups.

The problem remains of how to set the hurdle for listing in the Wow category. We can't really vote in advance on things we've never seen. Posting pictures and descriptions would help but would tend to diminish the "unexpected" factor.

Gotta think some more.

Jon

8k · April 25, 2006

You could call the category "Hidden Gems", as this to me is the WOW factor. Sometimes there are places that are unique, beautiful, or interesting that are not widely known about and it is these that people can share with us all.

I thought about "Hidden Gems" but that might lead to confusion with this category <_<

April 25, 2006

Others have already touched on the major points that define "Wow" for me, but I think the primary characteristic is the "unexpected" quality of the location. That unexpected quality can arise from the location itself (a natural wonder), the story behind the location (so that's where that happened), or the sheer labor that someone put into creating the location (I recall a castle being constructed in the Rockies over a period of years by a single guy with no help out of local stones and mortar). I expect a nice view when I go into the mountains, I don't expect to see a multi-turreted castle that's a labor of years by a single eccentric fellow.

Besides the unexpected quality, I'd like to see a "spectacular" quality in most cases. While an unusual flower might be an interesting sight, it won't usually make me go "wow". I don't know if size matters directly, but I can't come up with any "wow" candidates that didn't give me room to wander around a little.

Cross-listing? Certainly! I don't plan to go looking for "wow" gold in the McDonalds franchise category. A gold nugget would be lost in the franchised sand and never found at all. The purpose of this category is in no way diminished by having the same item listed in a more extensive category because of one of its more mundane characteristics. We OUGHT to mine other categories for the really amazing stuff that would get lost because it's buried in with a lot of other things of interest only to certain groups.

The problem remains of how to set the hurdle for listing in the Wow category. We can't really vote in advance on things we've never seen. Posting pictures and descriptions would help but would tend to diminish the "unexpected" factor.

I like the explanation in the first paragraph pretty well personally... I can't remember the details of the WoW trees category so I can't look at it to see how this category could be bettered... but it would be nice to get a list of criteria not unlike you posted in first paragraph ( Criteria 1) the waymark fills the expectation of a, b, or c) and the second paragraph. (Criteria 2) Spectacular quality) maybe a couple more definitions could make it more refined...

also something that may not hurt would be example waymarks... maybe make a website with 2 or 3 different potential WoW waymarks that you would expect in the category, and even explain why this waymark would work. And maybe also have a couple of examples of what may not work... I remember the WoW trees had a picture of what could be a waymark, but never really explained what isn't... the could be helped a little and you knew what it was talking about... but the worry with this category is what won't be allowed more maybe than what will....

April 25, 2006

I like ikim & noj's writeup as well.

Is there any chance that a voting mechanism will be made available soon? If you could vote on each waymark, it might be possible to do the category writeup in subjective terms and then make the listing requirement that the waymark receive an 80% vote from the officers of the group (or something like that).

It would certainly make life more controversial but might be a way to at least get things started.

J

9.4k · April 25, 2006

Best kept Secrets?

Surprising Discoveries?

Surprise places?

Q&A locations (question and answer)

I'm out.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Jeremy

1.6k · April 26, 2006

"Ponderous" - either makes you think, or be amazed.

although "Best Kept Secrets" is really good in my opinion

:mad: The Blue Quasar

9.4k · April 26, 2006

"Ponderous" - either makes you think, or be amazed.

Places to Ponder?

Hmm... no. That sounds like a good place to meditate instead of a unique location. Although, places to meditate would make a good waymark category :mad:

1.5k · April 26, 2006

although "Best Kept Secrets" is really good in my opinion

I realize this may just be fanning the flames...but what's the difference between a "Best" and a "Moderately Kept" secret? I see this as working back into the original GC.com complaints with virtuals...yes, there are some categories that most people can agree, "hey, that's cool", but there will be far more cases where some groups will defend to the end..and others will say "ho, hum, another memorial to XYZ tragedy".

What if there was a way for the community to rate categories and then visitors could filter out categories that didn't seem to be gathering general support of a "good" category?

April 26, 2006

What if there was a way for the community to rate categories and then visitors could filter out categories that didn't seem to be gathering general support of a "good" category?

^^ Isn't this already in? Popularity filter no?

1.7k · April 26, 2006

I kinda like WOW. Maybe change it to The Wow Factor Waymarks? It has its roots in the wow factor of virtuals, which is what sparked this category.

Realistically, I dont think we can define wow factor as it related to virtual caches. I dont think we can have a universal wow factor definition. Why beat a dead horse? I think we can define wow factor for a waymark category. We can set limits for it and define what wow would be for a waymark within the category.

8k · April 26, 2006

"Ponderous" - either makes you think, or be amazed.

Places to Ponder?

Hmm... no. That sounds like a good place to meditate instead of a unique location. Although, places to meditate would make a good waymark category

One of the best virtuals I ever did GCGG91 would be perfect in a places to meditate category, although it would fit the best kept secrets as well.

8k · April 26, 2006

I kinda like WOW. Maybe change it to The Wow Factor Waymarks? It has its roots in the wow factor of virtuals, which is what sparked this category.

Realistically, I dont think we can define wow factor as it related to virtual caches. I dont think we can have a universal wow factor definition. Why beat a dead horse? I think we can define wow factor for a waymark category. We can set limits for it and define what wow would be for a waymark within the category.

My intent is to address the people who liked to find virtual caches and now complain that Waymarking is too bland. They see Waymarking as a bunch of categories that are either totally uninteresting or interesting to only a very small community. Some people stop at every historic marker when they are driving across the state. Most of us would find that boring. But the virtual cacher may have stopped at every virtual cache in the hopes of finding just one that was unexpected. The idea is to define a category that does that.

Most categories are easier to define and even easier to decide if you're interested or not. That's not to say that all are objective definitions that aren't subject to interpretation. One group is even fighting over whether spelling counts :laughing: The graffiti category has to be artistically skillful and appropriately placed. Someone gets to decide if a weather vane or birdhouse is truly unique.

I personally think the term wow is probably not a good one to use (other than a way to advertise this category to geocachers who are looking for something like virtuals). We need to provide a clearer guideline than

A virtual cache must be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects. Since the reward for a virtual cache is the location, the location should “WOW” the prospective finder. Signs, memorials, tombstones, statues or historical markers are among the items that are generally too common to qualify as a virtual cache.

There are already several Waymarking categories for objects that are novel or have special historic, community, or geocaching quality that set them apart from everday objects. We don't need another one to compete with those.

We will define likely define a guideline where not everything that was approved as a virtual would be accepted. Not even every great virtual would be accepted. What would be accepted would be places that will likely suprise the finders. I'm looking for the reaction "I never knew this was here. Thanks for sharing it"

8k · April 26, 2006

although "Best Kept Secrets" is really good in my opinion

I realize this may just be fanning the flames...but what's the difference between a "Best" and a "Moderately Kept" secret? I see this as working back into the original GC.com complaints with virtuals...yes, there are some categories that most people can agree, "hey, that's cool", but there will be far more cases where some groups will defend to the end..and others will say "ho, hum, another memorial to XYZ tragedy".

What if there was a way for the community to rate categories and then visitors could filter out categories that didn't seem to be gathering general support of a "good" category?

One of the advantages of Waymarking is that you can have a category just for people who are interested in memorials to XYZ tragedy. In fact they are already several memorial categories, as well as plane crashes and shipwrecks. And if there's a historic marker, it could probably go in that category as well. The category we are trying to propose here would accept a memorial to XYZ only if the submitter could make a case that locals in the area wouldn't know it's there. I suppose we may have guidelines so that if tragedy XYZ is too common place we wouldn't accept it (for example a car crash where no celebrities were involved) I've been to a number of 9/11 memorials I wouldn't have known about except that a geocache was placed nearby.

1.7k · April 26, 2006

Ok, since it was brought up, how WOW would a 9/11 memorial be?

In the east coast area, must be a lot of them. Im guessing not all of them would be wow. In Arizona, there are 2 that I know of. Both are crosses made from the WTC. I was almost in tears when I saw one of them at a cache in Arizona. I remember reaching out to touch the cross made from WTC steel. My hand shook. An emotional surprise. Very wow factor for me.

April 26, 2006

Ok, since it was brought up, how WOW would a 9/11 memorial be?

In the east coast area, must be a lot of them. Im guessing not all of them would be wow. In Arizona, there are 2 that I know of. Both are crosses made from the WTC. I was almost in tears when I saw one of them at a cache in Arizona. I remember reaching out to touch the cross made from WTC steel. My hand shook. An emotional surprise. Very wow factor for me.

Given that there may only be two in AZ, I might actually be inclined to say they are WoW... depending on what they are/how they are made.... surely not everyone of themw ould be WoW however... some are rather generic as far as memorials go and like you mentioned the east coast likely has bunches... I live in wisconsin and I don't think they are uncommon... however, i'm not sure how many are made out of WTC steel, or how many are actually done very well... the reasons something is wow would need to be explained somehow in the submission so that an officer could make a quality judgement on why this thing should be approved... if you submitted it without saying it was made of WTC steel or that there are only 2 in AZ, then perhaps it wouldn't get approved when it might if you did...

another issue to sort out on this type of memorial would be whether current events would fit in. I think while you certainly had a WoW reaction to the memorial... However, this reaction is likely because it is a recent event... I wonder if people would have the same reaction in 50 years, even if they were alive when the WTC collapsed... time heals wounds. This is something that would surely need to be discussed... would WoW need to be timeless? Something that would be WoW regardless of what happened in the last 10 years or so.... (I'd imagine there would be Berlin Wall areas that actually are timeless....)

9.4k · April 26, 2006

If I may, I'd like to suggest that you should start with the proof of find. That is, a question you must answer in order to post a visit log.

I like the idea that it should represent "wow" meaning a pleasant surprise or shock from coming to the location. If you made the category "I didn't know this was here" it may work, though kind of wordy. But that does seem to be the spirit of the category.

"I didn't know this was here" (in quotes) seems to work. Don't make me the guy directing this category though. I took my best shot at it and failed.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Jeremy

8k · April 26, 2006

Don't make me the guy directing this category though. I took my best shot at it and failed.

I'm just happy that you're participating without being snarky

Edited April 26, 2006 by tozainamboku

1.7k · April 26, 2006

Yes, we should have an answer to a question requirement, that you cant find on the internet.

Razak, an example of a wow factor for something that is 65 yrs old. I visited a location recently (keeping it secret for now lol) where there was a flagpole and a plaque. I read the plaque and was blown away. The flagpole was from the deck of the USS Arizona, retrieved and placed in this secret location. I was not born until long after that event, but seeing the flagpole was definitely a wow factor.

Im hoping that these examples will help us define the category.

2.1k · April 26, 2006

Will the target of each waymark be kept a secret from visitors? Will there be no gallery to sort through? I can't tell if you want the waymark to be a surprise or not. If so, I'll be sad that browsing the category won't offer much in the way of armchair entertainment.

April 26, 2006

Razak, an example of a wow factor for something that is 65 yrs old. I visited a location recently (keeping it secret for now lol) where there was a flagpole and a plaque. I read the plaque and was blown away. The flagpole was from the deck of the USS Arizona, retrieved and placed in this secret location. I was not born until long after that event, but seeing the flagpole was definitely a wow factor.

Im hoping that these examples will help us define the category.

I again like this idea... again I am just kind of weary of the 911 memorials for this kind of category, because like I said the event is awefully fresh in our minds... there are tons of these memorials out there (and I'm sure someone will make a category for them), but am sure people will be deeply moved by every one of them, not because it is a cool memorial (like the USS Arizona one) but because it is a memorial that is fresh... After all, I do think 911 will have a hold on this country much like Pearl Harbor does in the future... but there is really only 1 real memorial that anyone visits... and that is pearl harbor... I wouldn't be surprised if in 60 the only memorial left are the weird ones like the USS Arizona one you mentioned, or the Ground Zero one which will keep its signficance. The others will sort of die away as interest fades. (I'm sure there will also be one in Washington stuck somewhere too) That was my only intent with my remark on time-related events....

1.7k · April 26, 2006

Will the target of each waymark be kept a secret from visitors? Will there be no gallery to sort through? I can't tell if you want the waymark to be a surprise or not. If so, I'll be sad that browsing the category won't offer much in the way of armchair entertainment.

Tozainamboku hasnt expressed much about that, and it is his group. Im just tossing out thoughts.

Personally I like the surprise aspect of a waymark in this category. I think some of the complaints Ive seen on Waymarking has been about the lack of surprise at the waymark sites. This one category can have the surprise to it.

I also like armchair Waymarking. Ive seen virtuals that have photos yet still maintain the surprise aspect. There are levels of keeping something a surprise. "Go here and email me an answer to a question" is about as much of a surprise as you can get. No hint at all to what you will see. "Go here and tell me in an email what is so special about this flagpole" is a bit more revealing. May not be as much fun for armchair Waymarking, but then most virtuals didnt give that away either. Photos would still be feasible without spoiling the surprise. If you really must know what it is, you can email the owner.

If a waymarker can create a waymark without a surprise, yet still maintaining a wowness to it, then that should be acceptable. Perhaps it is just as much about the creativity of a waymarker to make a wow factor as it is about the wow of the location itself.

Lol I probably only made things more confusing with this post.

8k · April 26, 2006

Razak, an example of a wow factor for something that is 65 yrs old. I visited a location recently (keeping it secret for now lol) where there was a flagpole and a plaque. I read the plaque and was blown away. The flagpole was from the deck of the USS Arizona, retrieved and placed in this secret location. I was not born until long after that event, but seeing the flagpole was definitely a wow factor.

Im hoping that these examples will help us define the category.

I again like this idea... again I am just kind of weary of the 911 memorials for this kind of category, because like I said the event is awefully fresh in our minds... there are tons of these memorials out there (and I'm sure someone will make a category for them), but am sure people will be deeply moved by every one of them, not because it is a cool memorial (like the USS Arizona one) but because it is a memorial that is fresh... After all, I do think 911 will have a hold on this country much like Pearl Harbor does in the future... but there is really only 1 real memorial that anyone visits... and that is pearl harbor... I wouldn't be surprised if in 60 the only memorial left are the weird ones like the USS Arizona one you mentioned, or the Ground Zero one which will keep its signficance. The others will sort of die away as interest fades. (I'm sure there will also be one in Washington stuck somewhere too) That was my only intent with my remark on time-related events....

The point here is that everyone knows about the USS Arizona in Pearl Harbor or the WTC site and the Pentagon for 9/11. Not everyone knows about the 9/11 memorial made from a WTC girder and Pentagon granite at the local fire station in Sherman Oaks, California. And while it's not suprising that there would be a USS Arizona memorial in Arizona, its likely that even many people in the area don't know of the one Desert Viking visited. This is the "I didn't know this was there" or "I didn't know what this was" wowness that I think we can capture. I think trying to define something broader will lead to problems defining clear guidelines and cause disagreements later on.

Will the target of each waymark be kept a secret from visitors? Will there be no gallery to sort through? I can't tell if you want the waymark to be a surprise or not. If so, I'll be sad that browsing the category won't offer much in the way of armchair entertainment.

I think this would be up to the waymark owner. In some cases they may feel that giving away too much in the description or log will spoil the suprise. In other cases, they could describe exactly what is there and a person would still be "wowed" when visiting. The category could work for armchair waymarkers if the waymark creator just wants to let people know that "this" is there.

1.7k · April 26, 2006

Maybe a definition of wow should be:

Prove to us this has wow, and we will approve the waymark.

Something else that can be considered is the rating system. If a waymark is visited, it can be rated. People will know after a few visits whether or not the waymark is living up to the wow factor or not.

1.7k · April 26, 2006

Ok, what we have so far (I think).

1) Little known place or thing even to locals.

2) Unique in some way.

3) An aspect of surprise to the finder.

Did I miss anything?

2.1k · April 26, 2006

Maybe a definition of wow should be:

Prove to us this has wow, and we will approve the waymark.

I think this is the most realistic guideline so far. Take your chances. Spin the wheel. No whammies no whammies STOP.

You'll hear some bellyaching but if you have thick skin it might work.

Wow Waymarkers Group

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment