Jump to content

Requirements For National Register Of Historic Places


Recommended Posts

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

 

To post a new waymark in this category, please:

 

a) Provide the name as it is listed in the [u.S.] National Register of Historic Places,

:anicute: Determine the latitude and longitude (in the WGS84 datum) by physically visiting the site,

c) Provide one or more non-copyrighted photographs of the place from that location, and

d) Provide the values of the variables as best you can.

 

Please verify with either of the WWW sites provided above to ensure your waymark is listed in the register.

 

I did all of that with the waymarks I submitted today. One of your officers sent me several emails declining my waymarks for extremely picky grammar and spelling errors. The requirements MUST be updated to include perfect spelling or this officer needs to stop declining waymarks arbitrarily, since they meet the criteria for submission otherwise.

 

If the perfect grammar and spelling is a requirement, then this needs to be known in the category description.

Link to comment

My waymark text:

 

The architects, Myron Hunt and Arthur Burnett Benton designed the hotel in the Mission/Spanish Revival style of architecture. Dr. Chandler, for whom the town is named, was a visionary. He dreamed of a carefully landscaped central park surrounded by businesses. The hotel would be a cornerstone of that park. Located at that time in the middle of an alfalfa field, construction started on the San Marcos Hotel, the area’s first luxury resort. Upon its completion, wealthy guests from around the country flocked to this fledgling town (only a year old at that time). The grand opening of the San Marcos Hotel took place on November 22, 1913. Among the 500 guests present were Governor George P. Hunt and Vice President Thomas Marshall.

 

Unlike many old resorts or hotels, the San Marcos has not deteriorated. It is still a luxury resort, one filled with old charm and grandeur.

 

The picky email:

 

Uh-oh! Your waymark, 'San Marcos Hotel' has been denied by the

category owner. The following reason for the denial was given:

 

"Put a comma after Benton

 

instead of using ( ) write:

fledgling town which was only a...

 

Make the last sentence part of the paragraph. It looks rather lost by

itself.

 

Rose Red"

Link to comment

I am an officer in the group and I have sent an email to all group members regarding this issue. I do personally agree with you that as the Category stands your waymarks should not have been denied, I have asked from input from the all members regarding this. Please now that the group is discussing this issue; and as I am not the leader I can not speak for them.

Link to comment

I have had similar experiences with this category, though I have worked through the difficulties. The three rejections which ticked me off the most are the following:

 

The address llisted by the archdiocese which I used as the address of the church did not match what the reviewer had for the address. I wonder which one is correct???

 

I had typed a.m. and p.m. in my description which didn't not match the AM and PM in the variable. The variable times are input in 24 hr time which the system converts to 12 hr time and places the AM and PM. I have no control over this conversion.

 

I had typed 154 feet tall. Wanted 154-foot tall with the dash and foot instead of feet.

 

 

I agree with standards for waymarks but these seem to be quite extreme and also would discourage people from placing waymarks in the category. I have several more waymarks for this category as I like the category but it is discouraging to place the in the category.

Edited by BruceS
Link to comment

I'm optimistic that this will all be worked out once the managing group has a chance to talk it over.

 

What we are seeing here is an example of the way group management is intended to work - any issues which come up can (presumably) be resolved by those who manage the category without the site admins having to get directly involved.

 

This won't be the last time such issues arise - hopefully this example will give us a chance to see how the group-based management system can work successfully.

Link to comment

This was actually a really funny thread to read for me. I realize it isn't funny to you but it is just funny to be out of the situation and reading it. I can't even believe that these things are that big of a deal where someone would even bother mentioning them WITH approval, let alone denying because of them!!

 

Although there are apparantly these perfectionists out there I got a deny vote on my last category because I spelt address, adress. If that was my only type, I think I did fairly well though=) I should get a ribbon!!!!

 

I think there needs to be language in the peer review page that typos should be pointed out but categories should not get denied for a typo! Same with waymarks regardless of who owns the category... certianly fi teh etnrie txt lOOks bd, but not if it is just the occassional tpyo/mis-pelling, or perfectionist hell of where to put commas! (I'm an English major and don't care that much bout this stuff!)

Link to comment

I am an officer in that group and I have had waymarks, which I approved, declined later for the reasons stated above. I really don't understand it. All the required info is there. If there is a spelling or grammar mistake it should not keep it from being approved.

 

Again I ask the question.... why can a waymark appoved by one officer be declined by another after the approval? This category is particularly bad for this.

Link to comment

I hope that all the other officers in the group are at work or something as after my email last night to them all; I have not heard from anyone! Geo Gordie, Ambrosia, Team Geo Duo & Special Ed all have been online today, but I have had no emails back from anyone to discuss this, so I am forced to discuss this here. ( In my opinion it should have been a private discussion).

I too agree with Special Ed that why would these waymarks been approved by him and then another of our officers allowed to decline the waymark This is two separtate issues;

1. We have an officer "Rose Red"who believes spelling and grammer count for declining a waymark even though the requirements do not say this and Rose Red has not responded to my email request to discuss why this was being done as it clearly is not a requirement; and Rose Red has been online today, nor has the leader of the group responded, but in the leaders defense he has not been online yet.

2. Another real problem is that once an officer approves a waymark that another can decline it and it is removed. ( This needs to be addressed by Groundspeak admins. not our group)

 

As an officer if no one responds to my emails there is also nothing that as an officer I can do except discuss it here in an open thread; evidently only the leader can call for a vote.

Edited by chstress53
Link to comment

I wasn't part of the denial but I do know it is pretty straighforward to make quick fixes and resubmit it. If they ask to make some minor spelling changes it doesn't take much to do it and resubmit it, right?

No, it doesn't take much to resubmit. But that's not the point.

 

In this case, there seems to be disagreement among the group members about what, exactly, constitutes a valid submittal. So there have been waymarks approved by one group member which were later rejected by another group member.

 

Even if making a correction is easy to do, it would seem be much better for the group to come to a common understanding so people submitting waymarks aren't subject this accept/reject/resubmit situation.

Link to comment

Jeremy,

 

If perfect spelling is required, then the requirements should state so. If it was glaring errors, that would not be so annoying. If it was only spelling that too wouldnt be so bad. But to have waymarks denied for not having a period after St or to have them denied because the officer doesnt like where you placed a sentence is too much. This isnt a classroom, and there is no need for this officer to treat us like children, correcting our grammar.

 

Since the requirements do not state perfect spelling is needed to place a waymark, and since I have had about 7 or so waymarks denied by this person, 2 of them denied after they were initially approved, then either the requirements to be updated, or this officer's compulsive obsession with perfect spelling and grammar need to be addressed.

 

All Im asking for is consistency in approval or denial of waymarks per the stated guidelines of the category. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

Link to comment

The log belongs to the finder of the waymark and their style is a direct reflection of their work and their personality. It's not an extension of the owner of the waymark view on how thing should be spelled. Just as the finder should not be telling the owner what their own rules for a find should be, nor should the owners tell people what to write to expess themselves. The focus should be the checklist of items that show you found the waymark.

 

Yes the correction is easy to make, but not as easy as not having made the overbearing request to begin with.

Link to comment

I think there is another bug in the system. I heard from some officers and no one received my emails until they saw my post in the forums. I emailed last evening and then a few times again today, I clicked on the boxes to send to the entire group ( both members and officers)and several to specific officers, including a friendly request to Rose Red asking why the denials for spelling, I did this in a polite manner. Evidently no one received my emails. Another Officer has also told me that there emails went unanswered too. Just received a generated email when an officer quits the group ( Rose RED). This has evidently caused some hurt feelings. The email thing should be looked into . So that this does not occur to another group.

 

I believe something is wrong with the email thing , I say this as I am still getting several generated emails with 1 waymark, my gut tells me this may be related.

Edited by chstress53
Link to comment
Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

 

To post a new waymark in this category, please:

 

a) Provide the name as it is listed in the [u.S.] National Register of Historic Places,

:unsure: Determine the latitude and longitude (in the WGS84 datum) by physically visiting the site,

c) Provide one or more non-copyrighted photographs of the place from that location, and

d) Provide the values of the variables as best you can.

 

Please verify with either of the WWW sites provided above to ensure your waymark is listed in the register.

 

I did all of that with the waymarks I submitted today. One of your officers sent me several emails declining my waymarks for extremely picky grammar and spelling errors. The requirements MUST be updated to include perfect spelling or this officer needs to stop declining waymarks arbitrarily, since they meet the criteria for submission otherwise.

 

If the perfect grammar and spelling is a requirement, then this needs to be known in the category description.

 

Well, I went to sleep last night and everything was fine in Waymarking-land. I stumbled out the door, and braved the Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway (which any denizen of my nation's capital will tell you is no mean feat) to put in another day of toil. What do I find when I return home? A part of Waymarking-land of which I have become fond is figuratively aflame. So, let's wade through the posts, and see where we are.

 

First, suggesting changes to grammar and spelling do not constitute "abuse". Suggesting that it does significantly weakens your argument, and urges the reader to chuckle, and pass your post by.

 

Next, I'm not responsible for passing judgment on what constitutes "extremely picky" and what doesn't, so I won't venture too far down that path. I can share that standards for grammar and spelling vary widely,; that's not a good thing for our society and doesn't speak well for our educational "system". My "pet peeves" include spelling mistakes that involve people's names: if we can't respect them enough to spell their name correctly, what message does that send?

 

We won't be updating the requirements to specify perfect grammar and spelling. If the spelling and grammar are egregiously wrong, expect a polite rejection with a suggestion for correcting the error(s). If one of the variables contains a spelling error, also expect a rejection: the impending search feature won't work well if we can't get the contents of the variables spelled correctly. It would be easier if the reviewer could fix errors during the review and approval process, but we can't, so our recourse is to send it back to the submitter for correction.

 

At the end of the day, there are several names associated with this process. First, the waymarker's name is on the individual waymark, so if the contents are "off" in some way, it reflects on that individual (or team). Second, the name of the group is also on that waymark. The group (which consists of individual volunteers) is established to administer the category against a set of standards. An implied standard in this group is that entries are expressed in English, and at least one of our group officers held that standard a bit higher (or perhaps much higher) than (a) other officers, (:huh: denizens of the Waymarking community, and © the general public. I doubt that the officer in question was declining waymarks "arbitrarily" -- it seems that all the rejections in question were for the same, consistent reason.

Link to comment

My waymark listed the address:

 

238 W. 2nd St

 

The declining email:

 

Uh-oh! Your waymark, 'Mesa Journal--Tribune FHA Demonstration Home'

has been denied by the category owner. The following reason for the

denial was given:

 

"Change

 

St. or Street

 

And I will approve the waymark. Rose Red"

 

Was this one so out of line that it needed to be denied?

 

The first 2 waymarks I did for this category were approved by one officer, and then denied by another officer, one for spelling "altho" instead of "although", the second for spelling "gps" instead of "GPSr", "Ive" instead of "I've". (See thread on this dated April 13th at this link.) I can see the point about spelling Maricopa appropriately as a variable, but these other 3 examples? They were not variables, nor were they major mistakes. What about BruceS' example of 154 feet versus 154-foot? What about the example in post 2 on this thread? Please explain how these differences warranted denials.

Link to comment

I would appreciate a response from the group about whether or not perfect spelling and grammar is a part of this category. If it is, why isnt the category updated. If it isnt, what are you all planning to do about your officer? These are not big glaring mistakes, but rather an obsessive compulsion for perfection.

 

The responses are piling up.

 

As I explained earlier, perfect spelling and grammar is not a part of the category. Clear communication, however, is a plus.

 

With regard to "what you all are planning to do about your officer?", let me suggest that you unclench your fists, climb down from the roof, and adopt a less urgent and confrontational tone. Your original missive was launched a scant nine minutes before this one. While we can scale up to full-on, rock-and-roll, thermonuclear war in nine minutes, I don't think a hobby / sport / game / lifestyle like Waymarking deserves such hair-trigger escalation. I realize (and respect) that you feel you've been wronged, but let's approach this is a less in-your-face way, okay?

Link to comment

I am an officer in the group and I have sent an email to all group members regarding this issue. I do personally agree with you that as the Category stands your waymarks should not have been denied, I have asked from input from the all members regarding this. Please now that the group is discussing this issue; and as I am not the leader I can not speak for them.

 

The email feature may not be working as expected. I did get your second email, which I have answered.

 

The group email feature (apart from not working reliably), doesn't provide a respond-to-all feature. I suspect we're better off having these debates in public until the new category-by-category forums feature is implemented.

 

I am the leader, but I don't profess to speak for anyone but myself. "Leader" in a Waymarking sense is different from the concept of "leader" in my Day Job. No one's life is on the line in the Waymarking sense of the word "leader", so I try not to confuse the two uses of that word, though I admit that deep breathing in the presense of crises works for both.

Link to comment

For the record, I didnt want Rose Red to leave. Im quite sad that she felt she had to leave the group because I brought this out in public. All I wanted was consistency in this category. As leader, at least you have made the group standard clear now. I will know to expect frequent rejections from the group when my spelling or grammar doesnt meet your standards.

Link to comment

'Robson Historic District'

 

Declined.

 

I mispelled Maricopa County, Maricops. Declined for that reason.

 

If the misspelling is in a variable, which will support a person's ability to search, expect more of these polite rejections.

 

Why? Is a person logging a find, or being required to build a database? There is a world of difference between the two. One is fun, The other work.

Link to comment

I have had similar experiences with this category, though I have worked through the difficulties. The three rejections which ticked me off the most are the following:

 

The address llisted by the archdiocese which I used as the address of the church did not match what the reviewer had for the address. I wonder which one is correct???

 

I had typed a.m. and p.m. in my description which didn't not match the AM and PM in the variable. The variable times are input in 24 hr time which the system converts to 12 hr time and places the AM and PM. I have no control over this conversion.

 

I had typed 154 feet tall. Wanted 154-foot tall with the dash and foot instead of feet.

 

 

I agree with standards for waymarks but these seem to be quite extreme and also would discourage people from placing waymarks in the category. I have several more waymarks for this category as I like the category but it is discouraging to place the in the category.

 

With regard to the address, the reviewer may have been using the National Register of Historic Places to check your entry. So, the question becomes "is the submitter right, or is the National Park Service right?" Depending upon your political bent and personal experience, you may be inclined to go with either the submitter or the U.S. Government (and the people who listed the place on the register in the first place).

Link to comment

While we can scale up to full-on, rock-and-roll, thermonuclear war in nine minutes, I don't think a hobby / sport / game / lifestyle like Waymarking deserves such hair-trigger escalation. I realize (and respect) that you feel you've been wronged, but let's approach this is a less in-your-face way, okay?

 

My apologies.

 

My first thread on this subject, dated April 13th was ignored by the group in general, except for Special Ed. It would have been nice if this had been addressed last week.

Link to comment

This was actually a really funny thread to read for me. I realize it isn't funny to you but it is just funny to be out of the situation and reading it. I can't even believe that these things are that big of a deal where someone would even bother mentioning them WITH approval, let alone denying because of them!!

 

Although there are apparantly these perfectionists out there I got a deny vote on my last category because I spelt address, adress. If that was my only type, I think I did fairly well though=) I should get a ribbon!!!!

 

I think there needs to be language in the peer review page that typos should be pointed out but categories should not get denied for a typo! Same with waymarks regardless of who owns the category... certianly fi teh etnrie txt lOOks bd, but not if it is just the occassional tpyo/mis-pelling, or perfectionist hell of where to put commas! (I'm an English major and don't care that much bout this stuff!)

 

I'm glad we could entertain.

 

Your ribbon is in the mail.

 

At which institution are you an English major?

Link to comment

I am an officer in that group and I have had waymarks, which I approved, declined later for the reasons stated above. I really don't understand it. All the required info is there. If there is a spelling or grammar mistake it should not keep it from being approved.

 

Again I ask the question.... why can a waymark appoved by one officer be declined by another after the approval? This category is particularly bad for this.

 

The on-again, off-again approval process is something that should be addressed. I'm sure the Groundspeak team is working hard to resolve issues, and this probably isn't near the top of the list. One of the features I'd appreciate is the ability to resolve minor issues myself during the approval process. The submitter doesn't care about spelling and grammar issues (or they wouldn't be there in the first place), so won't mind having them fixed to ensure the category is consistent. Major issues can be "kicked back" to the submitter for fixing.

 

This category is particularly bad for this because (a) we have so many officers (which I'm not inclined to change because of the workload this category will generate in the future, as soon as this hubbub dissipates), and (:laughing: we have [had] an aggressive officer working the queue.

Link to comment

I appreciate the officers of this group taking the time to address this matter. I hope this issue will show how well the group management system can deal with big issues like this.

 

I have several more waymarks to place, but will not place them until this spelling issue is dealt with.

 

In comparison with my Day Job, I can assure you this doesn't qualify as a "big issue" for me, but I understand your point.

 

Consider the "spelling issue" to be "dealt with", so list away. I do ask that you proofread your submission, and fix the obvious spelling and typographical errors.

Link to comment

My waymark listed the address:

 

238 W. 2nd St

 

The declining email:

 

Uh-oh! Your waymark, 'Mesa Journal--Tribune FHA Demonstration Home'

has been denied by the category owner. The following reason for the

denial was given:

 

"Change

 

St. or Street

 

And I will approve the waymark. Rose Red"

 

Was this one so out of line that it needed to be denied?

 

The first 2 waymarks I did for this category were approved by one officer, and then denied by another officer, one for spelling "altho" instead of "although", the second for spelling "gps" instead of "GPSr", "Ive" instead of "I've". (See thread on this dated April 13th at this link.) I can see the point about spelling Maricopa appropriately as a variable, but these other 3 examples? They were not variables, nor were they major mistakes. What about BruceS' example of 154 feet versus 154-foot? What about the example in post 2 on this thread? Please explain how these differences warranted denials.

 

I would sincerely appreciate your explaination about why these were not acceptable. I do feel this is over the top.

Link to comment

I hope that all the other officers in the group are at work or something as after my email last night to them all; I have not heard from anyone! Geo Gordie, Ambrosia, Team Geo Duo & Special Ed all have been online today, but I have had no emails back from anyone to discuss this, so I am forced to discuss this here. ( In my opinion it should have been a private discussion).

I too agree with Special Ed that why would these waymarks been approved by him and then another of our officers allowed to decline the waymark This is two separtate issues;

1. We have an officer "Rose Red"who believes spelling and grammer count for declining a waymark even though the requirements do not say this and Rose Red has not responded to my email request to discuss why this was being done as it clearly is not a requirement; and Rose Red has been online today, nor has the leader of the group responded, but in the leaders defense he has not been online yet.

2. Another real problem is that once an officer approves a waymark that another can decline it and it is removed. ( This needs to be addressed by Groundspeak admins. not our group)

 

As an officer if no one responds to my emails there is also nothing that as an officer I can do except discuss it here in an open thread; evidently only the leader can call for a vote.

 

Yes, I was at work or something, but you have my undivided attention now. I didn't get your original email, for reasons yet unknown. I wonder if others (including Rose Red) didn't get your emails. No way to tell at this stage of the game, I guess.

 

I think this is a fine place to discuss these kinds of issues -- it's good for our group, and it's probably good for the larger Waymarking community, who are likely going to wind up with issues just like this in their future.

 

See my previous comments about on-again, off-again approvals / rejections. That issue will need to be resolved by our site developers / hosts.

Link to comment

I wasn't part of the denial but I do know it is pretty straighforward to make quick fixes and resubmit it. If they ask to make some minor spelling changes it doesn't take much to do it and resubmit it, right?

No, it doesn't take much to resubmit. But that's not the point.

 

In this case, there seems to be disagreement among the group members about what, exactly, constitutes a valid submittal. So there have been waymarks approved by one group member which were later rejected by another group member.

 

Even if making a correction is easy to do, it would seem be much better for the group to come to a common understanding so people submitting waymarks aren't subject this accept/reject/resubmit situation.

 

No, I think that is the point. If the submission is flawed, fix the submission. Perceived disagreement among group officers has nothing to do with the correctness of the submission: it's either right, or it's wrong.

 

Getting a set of volunteers to agree on a set of standards (for grammar, spelling, or nearly anything else) is a noble goal, but it probably won' t happen. I suspect what you'll see is people doing what they think is right, in their own personal context.

Link to comment

Jeremy,

 

If perfect spelling is required, then the requirements should state so. If it was glaring errors, that would not be so annoying. If it was only spelling that too wouldnt be so bad. But to have waymarks denied for not having a period after St or to have them denied because the officer doesnt like where you placed a sentence is too much. This isnt a classroom, and there is no need for this officer to treat us like children, correcting our grammar.

 

Since the requirements do not state perfect spelling is needed to place a waymark, and since I have had about 7 or so waymarks denied by this person, 2 of them denied after they were initially approved, then either the requirements to be updated, or this officer's compulsive obsession with perfect spelling and grammar need to be addressed.

 

All Im asking for is consistency in approval or denial of waymarks per the stated guidelines of the category. I do not think that is an unreasonable request.

 

I doubt there was an intent to treat you as if you were a child. If you thought so, I apologize on behalf of that officer and myself.

 

I recommend against remote diagnosis of psychiatric disorders, particularly in public. You never know who is liable to be in the reading audience.

 

Perfect consistency isn't likely to happen in this group, because it would require a significant reduction in the number of reviewers. We can promise to do better, though.

Link to comment

The log belongs to the finder of the waymark and their style is a direct reflection of their work and their personality. It's not an extension of the owner of the waymark view on how thing should be spelled. Just as the finder should not be telling the owner what their own rules for a find should be, nor should the owners tell people what to write to expess themselves. The focus should be the checklist of items that show you found the waymark.

 

Yes the correction is easy to make, but not as easy as not having made the overbearing request to begin with.

 

We're not [yet] talking about logs -- we're talking about waymarks, which are going to be read by a lot of people and should be understandable by the largest percentage of the population possible.

 

I do agree that inputs are a product and direct reflection of the person who generates them.

 

Is a suggestion to correct an error in some way overbearing?

Link to comment

I think there is another bug in the system. I heard from some officers and no one received my emails until they saw my post in the forums. I emailed last evening and then a few times again today, I clicked on the boxes to send to the entire group ( both members and officers)and several to specific officers, including a friendly request to Rose Red asking why the denials for spelling, I did this in a polite manner. Evidently no one received my emails. Another Officer has also told me that there emails went unanswered too. Just received a generated email when an officer quits the group ( Rose RED). This has evidently caused some hurt feelings. The email thing should be looked into . So that this does not occur to another group.

 

I believe something is wrong with the email thing , I say this as I am still getting several generated emails with 1 waymark, my gut tells me this may be related.

 

Unsent emails usually do go unanswered. And yes, you can assume that there are hurt feelings (though not here).

Link to comment

I wasn't part of the denial but I do know it is pretty straighforward to make quick fixes and resubmit it. If they ask to make some minor spelling changes it doesn't take much to do it and resubmit it, right?

No, it doesn't take much to resubmit. But that's not the point.

 

In this case, there seems to be disagreement among the group members about what, exactly, constitutes a valid submittal. So there have been waymarks approved by one group member which were later rejected by another group member.

 

Even if making a correction is easy to do, it would seem be much better for the group to come to a common understanding so people submitting waymarks aren't subject this accept/reject/resubmit situation.

 

No, I think that is the point. If the submission is flawed, fix the submission. Perceived disagreement among group officers has nothing to do with the correctness of the submission: it's either right, or it's wrong.

Except that in the case of a submittal being both accepted and then later rejected, the submittal was neither right nor wrong. It was both. Or it was neither.

 

My point is that unless all the officers are in approximately the same place with regards to accept/decline criteria, the category can expect a never-ending stream of controversy.

 

In the most extreme case, we could end up with feuding officers continuously accepting and declining the same waymark submittal in a game of one-upsmanship. How easy it is for the person submitting the waymark to resubmit the same waymark over and over again while officers feud isn't the point. The point is that the group members all need to be on the same page.

Link to comment

My waymark listed the address:

 

238 W. 2nd St

 

The declining email:

 

Uh-oh! Your waymark, 'Mesa Journal--Tribune FHA Demonstration Home'

has been denied by the category owner. The following reason for the

denial was given:

 

"Change

 

St. or Street

 

And I will approve the waymark. Rose Red"

 

Was this one so out of line that it needed to be denied?

 

The first 2 waymarks I did for this category were approved by one officer, and then denied by another officer, one for spelling "altho" instead of "although", the second for spelling "gps" instead of "GPSr", "Ive" instead of "I've". (See thread on this dated April 13th at this link.) I can see the point about spelling Maricopa appropriately as a variable, but these other 3 examples? They were not variables, nor were they major mistakes. What about BruceS' example of 154 feet versus 154-foot? What about the example in post 2 on this thread? Please explain how these differences warranted denials.

 

As I've explained earlier, I'm not going to comment on whether or not specific items were "out of line". An individual in my group made a judgment call; perhaps made a lot of judgment calls. I may or may not agree with those judgment calls, but if you think you've been wronged, how about taking it up with the reviewer (by email), and if that doesn't work, kick it up to the group leader (again, by email)?

 

In my line of work, we're inclined to support our troops in public and fix [non-criminal] problems in private. The quickest way to trash morale is to second-guess your people. You've elected to "go nuclear" in public, so fixing problems in private isn't an option. So, here we are.

Link to comment

I have had similar experiences with this category, though I have worked through the difficulties. The three rejections which ticked me off the most are the following:

 

The address llisted by the archdiocese which I used as the address of the church did not match what the reviewer had for the address. I wonder which one is correct???

 

I had typed a.m. and p.m. in my description which didn't not match the AM and PM in the variable. The variable times are input in 24 hr time which the system converts to 12 hr time and places the AM and PM. I have no control over this conversion.

 

I had typed 154 feet tall. Wanted 154-foot tall with the dash and foot instead of feet.

 

 

I agree with standards for waymarks but these seem to be quite extreme and also would discourage people from placing waymarks in the category. I have several more waymarks for this category as I like the category but it is discouraging to place the in the category.

 

With regard to the address, the reviewer may have been using the National Register of Historic Places to check your entry. So, the question becomes "is the submitter right, or is the National Park Service right?" Depending upon your political bent and personal experience, you may be inclined to go with either the submitter or the U.S. Government (and the people who listed the place on the register in the first place).

 

I understand referring to the Registry listing however it must be remembered that the information listed is as of the listing date. Addresses change over time. I have one that is listed as 400 Wharf St., St. Louis which was correct in 1967. For 30 years after that the site was in a totally different county than St. Louis. It has moved again and I haven't found it yet. (it is a boat). I have another that is listed as 920 Manchester Rd; Manchester; 920 Manchester Rd isn't in Manchester now, it might have been back in 1979 when the site was listed. The site is actually at 14318 Manchester Rd, Manchester which is 8.5 miles from 920 Manchester Rd.

Link to comment

For the record, I didnt want Rose Red to leave. Im quite sad that she felt she had to leave the group because I brought this out in public. All I wanted was consistency in this category. As leader, at least you have made the group standard clear now. I will know to expect frequent rejections from the group when my spelling or grammar doesnt meet your standards.

 

For the record, it doesn't matter whether you wanted that outcome or not. The result is the same.

 

As for spelling and grammar, they're not my standards. I'm not responsible for defining the English language; that job is done admirably by people with a lot more talent than I have.

 

My suggestion for reducing the frequency of rejection is to proofread your submissions, and fix the obvious errors.

Link to comment

I have had similar experiences with this category, though I have worked through the difficulties. The three rejections which ticked me off the most are the following:

 

The address llisted by the archdiocese which I used as the address of the church did not match what the reviewer had for the address. I wonder which one is correct???

 

I had typed a.m. and p.m. in my description which didn't not match the AM and PM in the variable. The variable times are input in 24 hr time which the system converts to 12 hr time and places the AM and PM. I have no control over this conversion.

 

I had typed 154 feet tall. Wanted 154-foot tall with the dash and foot instead of feet.

 

 

I agree with standards for waymarks but these seem to be quite extreme and also would discourage people from placing waymarks in the category. I have several more waymarks for this category as I like the category but it is discouraging to place the in the category.

 

With regard to the address, the reviewer may have been using the National Register of Historic Places to check your entry. So, the question becomes "is the submitter right, or is the National Park Service right?" Depending upon your political bent and personal experience, you may be inclined to go with either the submitter or the U.S. Government (and the people who listed the place on the register in the first place).

 

I understand referring to the Registry listing however it must be remembered that the information listed is as of the listing date. Addresses change over time. I have one that is listed as 400 Wharf St., St. Louis which was correct in 1967. For 30 years after that the site was in a totally different county than St. Louis. It has moved again and I haven't found it yet. (it is a boat). I have another that is listed as 920 Manchester Rd; Manchester; 920 Manchester Rd isn't in Manchester now, it might have been back in 1979 when the site was listed. The site is actually at 14318 Manchester Rd, Manchester which is 8.5 miles from 920 Manchester Rd.

 

Okay, that's obviously a problem. When those issues come up, it's reasonable to expect a note from the reviewer. One of the points, here, is to build a reliable database that future finders can use...accuracy is highly desirable.

Link to comment

'Robson Historic District'

 

Declined.

 

I mispelled Maricopa County, Maricops. Declined for that reason.

 

If the misspelling is in a variable, which will support a person's ability to search, expect more of these polite rejections.

 

Why? Is a person logging a find, or being required to build a database? There is a world of difference between the two. One is fun, The other work.

 

We're not talking about logging finds [yet]. We're talking about building the database. Yes, there is a world of difference between the two. If the database isn't right, finding the waymarks won't be nearly as much fun -- it might turn into work.

 

Once we get the waymarks in place, we can have this same debate (perhaps) about finding those waymarks.

Link to comment

 

Okay, that's obviously a problem. When those issues come up, it's reasonable to expect a note from the reviewer. One of the points, here, is to build a reliable database that future finders can use...accuracy is highly desirable.

 

It is easily handled. I will just put a note in the private note section on the submittal form when the address I list is different from the registry listing explaining the difference.

Link to comment

 

Okay, that's obviously a problem. When those issues come up, it's reasonable to expect a note from the reviewer. One of the points, here, is to build a reliable database that future finders can use...accuracy is highly desirable.

 

It is easily handled. I will just put a note in the private note section on the submittal form when the address I list is different from the registry listing explaining the difference.

 

Thanks...the perfect solution....

Link to comment

In comparison with my Day Job, I can assure you this doesn't qualify as a "big issue" for me, but I understand your point.

 

Consider the "spelling issue" to be "dealt with", so list away. I do ask that you proofread your submission, and fix the obvious spelling and typographical errors.

 

Hmm, no thanks. I will list the ones I have photos and coordinates for, then leave it alone. I dont care for the patronizing attitude nor the passive aggressive jab when you corrected my spelling and provided links to "prove" my incompetence. You will probably prefer this solution anyway.

Link to comment

Wow what an evening, I too will be opting out of a wonderful category because I too think the group should all hold to the same standards, which evidently is not the case here. I totally agree with this statement by Cache test dummies

 

"Except that in the case of a submittal being both accepted and then later rejected, the submittal was neither right nor wrong. It was both. Or it was neither. My point is that unless all the officers are in approximately the same place with regards to accept/decline criteria, the category can expect a never-ending stream of controversy. In the most extreme case, we could end up with feuding officers continuously accepting and declining the same waymark submittal in a game of one-upsmanship. How easy it is for the person submitting the waymark to resubmit the same waymark over and over again while officers feud isn't the point. The point is that the group members all need to be on the same page."

 

 

I think the waymarks should not have been declined, they meet the requirements as stated on the page. AND NEVER SHOULD ONE OFFICER HAVE DECLINED A WAYMARK THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED WITHOUT TAKING IT UP TO THE LEAADERSHIP!!! ( NOTE THE SPELLING ERRORS)If the group is holding to a different standard then it should state so on the page. By the way I did not get an email from you wilsonjl yet this evening. I am sorry the email thing on the group page is evidently not working, 4 others have contacted me saying they too did not get my emails. THEY WERE SENT!! I sent them from the page, I can not explain why it is not working. I would rather not belong to a group that holds to miniscule standards, in such a deserving Catagory. I think this is not what Chapterhouse wanted to occur when he relinquished Leadership. I do however admire and respect our leaders remarks

"As I've explained earlier, I'm not going to comment on whether or not specific items were "out of line". An individual in my group made a judgment call; perhaps made a lot of judgment calls. I may or may not agree with those judgment calls, but if you think you've been wronged, how about taking it up with the reviewer (by email), and if that doesn't work, kick it up to the group leader (again, by email)? In my line of work, we're inclined to support our troops in public and fix [non-criminal] problems in private. The quickest way to trash morale is to second-guess your people. You've elected to "go nuclear" in public, so fixing problems in private isn't an option. So, here we are"

 

Had this been able to be handled privately I believe there would have been a different outcome. Even Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking are members of the Category last time I checked. They were part of the group I sent an email to last evening and again today, as a member of this group.

BUT EMAIL WAS NOT WORKING!!!!!!

 

So it was brought here.

I respectfully decline to participate in a Category that will decline a waymark for spelling or grammatical mistakes, if it is not listed as a requirement. I await to here from the officers before I do anything drastic .

Edited by chstress53
Link to comment

....I respectfully decline to participate in a Category that will decline a waymark for spelling or grammatical mistakes, if it is not listed as a requirement. I await to here from the officers before I do anything drastic though.

 

If they are going to require spelling and grammer and your submissions will be graded Pass/Fail as a result they also will need to state the standards they will enforce. For some reason writing styles change and there are fads that come and go.

Link to comment

I completely agree with Renegade Knight. I hope other officers and members of this category chime in, so I can make an informed decision. It is not my desire to leave the group, but currently I can see that I disagree, and if spelling & grammer are going to be a requirement then it needs to be stated and if it is not and they are still unacceptable to the leadership I want no part of this group. If not more situations like this will occur. There needs to be a consensus, maybe a group vote or something, I think that is what it was set up for.

Link to comment
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...