Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Requirements For National Register Of Historic Places

Recommended Posts

Wow, too bad we can't all play nice. Maybe that is what is really wrong with Waymarking?

 

chstress53 stepped up today for the group today and now she ready to leave the group. I completely agree with her.

 

We need all the officers on the same page. I sent an e-mail to all the officers tonight about problems with the links on a waymark that was waiting approval. The waymark was approved with the problems. I've got a very long honey-do list that I'd probably better get to work on.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, too bad we can't all play nice. Maybe that is what is really wrong with Waymarking?

 

chstress53 stepped up today for the group today and now she ready to leave the group. I completely agree with her.

 

We need all the officers on the same page. I sent an e-mail to all the officers tonight about problems with the links on a waymark that was waiting approval. The waymark was approved with the problems. I've got a very long honey-do list that I'd probably better get to work on.

 

Based on what I've seen, the Waymarking community isn't too much different from the U.S. Congress, except the members are paid a whole lot less.

 

We're experiencing several problems with the beta release, that we'll just have to work through. The email feature on the site either isn't working reliably, or isn't working at all -- this has been noted elsewhere in the forums, and I believe this issue is being worked. The approve / reject buttons remain on the waymark page so more than one reviewer can weigh in -- this issue has also been discussed elsewhere and it, too, is probably being worked.

 

I agree we need to get on the same page. Let's work through the forums (or take this offline to someplace like Yahoo!) until the group communication functionality is more robust.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

The simple solution to all of this would have been approving the waymark because the required info was there but sending them a polite note on the side asking them to fix typo, spelling, grammar etc...

 

I have gotten far more mileage out of this practice with the other categories I help manage versus out right declining the submission.

 

chstress53... I really hope you do not leave the group. You have been very involved in Waymarking in general and have alot to offer. Please stay.

 

The group email thingy...

 

I did not get one last night from Team GeoDuo. So maybe there is a bug in that system.

 

I am sorry to see Rose Red go but that was her choice. All that was asked (and it was asked nicely) was a little insight into why she was doing what she was doing.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, lets either take this offline or what has been working is the email from peoples profiles on the other site, in the box find another player. If we use something like yahoo Someone will have to tell me how to do that. I also think that we should have input from all the members of the group for their opinions not just the officers. Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking ( who had the waymarks denied is a member as well as cache test dummies who if I interpret their posts in this forum would not like the spelling & grammer thing to be included.) I still have very strong feelings, but I will not quit the group at this time till we work through this issue. I need to here from the entire group before I make a rash decision. I think this is a wonderful Category, that has suffered some glitches, that affect the community and I am willing to work through the challenges. Only after a time when I feel that we are not all on the same page would I quit the group, I do believe that all officers should agree about the requirments. And we all need to talk about this and try to come to a concensus, with the other members input which includes the team who started the thread. We need to listen to their needs and then as officers weigh in on a concensual standard.

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

If we use something like yahoo Someone will have to tell me how to do that.

 

Click here.

 

I also think that we should have input from all the members of the group for their opinions not just the officers. Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking ( who had the waymarks denied is a member as well as cache test dummies who if I interpret their posts in this forum would not like the spelling & grammer thing to be included.) I still have very strong feelings, but I will not quit the group at this time till we work through this issue. I need to here from the entire group before I make a rash decision. I think this is a wonderful Category, that has suffered some glitches, that affect the community and I am willing to work through the challenges. Only after a time when I feel that we are not all on the same page would I quit the group, I do believe that all officers should agree about the requirments. And we all need to talk about this and try to come to a concensus, with the other members input which includes the team who started the thread. We need to listen to their needs and then as officers weigh in on a concensual standard.

 

I agree. The group has open enrollment; if you could help pass the word around, that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post

I too invite everyone who has posted here, to click on the link, so that a more private discussion can ensue.

Share this post


Link to post

....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.

 

They're not pass/fail. I have often asked for people to change their Urls in the waymark submissions for webcams because they point to the home page and not the camera page itself, or for some odd naming convention. It's as simple as making a change and resubmitting it. Pass/Fail indicates some kind of rework, which is incorrect.

 

I'm getting the impression it is the tone of the email and not the corrections that get folks pants in a bunch.

 

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

Share this post


Link to post

I too invite everyone who has posted here, to click on the link, so that a more private discussion can ensue.

 

I would prefer that it continues here since it is an interesting insight into group management which will ultimately help us in developing features and tools to help alleviate issues in group management.

 

It's also interesting to note that the reviewers at geocaching.com often have the same kind of issues about consistency and guidelines. The pendulum constantly swings back and forth between too many and not enough guidelines.

 

It is however a compliment to you guys for your passion about particular categories, so at the base level remember you guys are interested in the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I too invite everyone who has posted here, to click on the link, so that a more private discussion can ensue.

 

I would prefer that it continues here since it is an interesting insight into group management which will ultimately help us in developing features and tools to help alleviate issues in group management.

 

It's also interesting to note that the reviewers at geocaching.com often have the same kind of issues about consistency and guidelines. The pendulum constantly swings back and forth between too many and not enough guidelines.

 

It is however a compliment to you guys for your passion about particular categories, so at the base level remember you guys are interested in the same thing.

 

Jeremy is right. The problem was aired here. It needs to be fixed here. Also Jeremy and company need to be in loop to help with any technical issues.

Share this post


Link to post

....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.

 

They're not pass/fail. I have often asked for people to change their Urls in the waymark submissions for webcams because they point to the home page and not the camera page itself, or for some odd naming convention. It's as simple as making a change and resubmitting it. Pass/Fail indicates some kind of rework, which is incorrect.

 

I'm getting the impression it is the tone of the email and not the corrections that get folks pants in a bunch.

 

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

 

I've seen some of the emails, so unless I'm not seeing the whole set, it's not the tone, but the perceived "pickiness" of the requested corrections.

 

The ability to make edits would be a huge help.

Share this post


Link to post

I too invite everyone who has posted here, to click on the link, so that a more private discussion can ensue.

 

I would prefer that it continues here since it is an interesting insight into group management which will ultimately help us in developing features and tools to help alleviate issues in group management.

 

It's also interesting to note that the reviewers at geocaching.com often have the same kind of issues about consistency and guidelines. The pendulum constantly swings back and forth between too many and not enough guidelines.

 

It is however a compliment to you guys for your passion about particular categories, so at the base level remember you guys are interested in the same thing.

 

Good point -- we ought to continue the debate and discussion here.

 

I've followed the debates at geocaching.com, and I've seen a wide range of quality in cache descriptions (and in caches themselves). Some of the angst in this group is growing pains, some of it is the consequence of operating in an environment full of volunteers, and some is because we're working through a beta on the way to a roll-out.

Share this post


Link to post

There's been a lot of discussion about putting standards on the category page. Here's a draft for community review / comment / criticism / ....

 

Your waymark will be entered in the Waymarking.com database for others in the community to read and enjoy. The usefulness of your waymark to the community is dependent upon its completeness and correctness. Please take ordinary care in both identifying the position of the waymark and in providing a clear and correct description, and proofread your waymark entry carefully prior to submission to remove obvious spelling and grammar errors.

 

There's no voting mechanism in place (yet), so we'll have to hammer this out in this forum.

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the OP errors in grammar and spellling. I feel that the corrections the officer required were not needed by anyone. The point of Waymarking is to have some fun locating and commenting on things, not creating works of literature. There will be some participants whose primary language is not English, and perhaps some who didn't complete a lot of school. Playing 'Your're It' with waymark denials and re-submits to force a crash course in top-knotch English spelling and grammar is going to be over the top.

 

I suggest dropping the last phrase, leaving this:

Your waymark will be entered in the Waymarking.com database for others in the community to read and enjoy. The usefulness of your waymark to the community is dependent upon its completeness and correctness. Please take ordinary care in both identifying the position of the waymark and in providing a clear and correct description.

 

Jeremy Posted Today, 09:57 AM

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

This could be even worse. I edited a newsletter for several years and found that some people go into an absolute rage if you touch one error. It would also make officers feel that they had to go over each waymark description with a spelling and grammar check a whole lot more than they do now. Would it really be necessary?

Share this post


Link to post

There's been a lot of discussion about putting standards on the category page. Here's a draft for community review / comment / criticism / ....

 

Your waymark will be entered in the Waymarking.com database for others in the community to read and enjoy. The usefulness of your waymark to the community is dependent upon its completeness and correctness. Please take ordinary care in both identifying the position of the waymark and in providing a clear and correct description, and proofread your waymark entry carefully prior to submission to remove obvious spelling and grammar grammatical errors.

 

There's no voting mechanism in place (yet), so we'll have to hammer this out in this forum.

 

Thoughts?

 

Well I have carefully avoided getting into this debate but I did have to correct the grammatical error. I hope you aren't offended but grammar is a noun, grammatical is the adjective :rolleyes: . Other than that the wording sounds good to me.

Share this post


Link to post

There's been a lot of discussion about putting standards on the category page. Here's a draft for community review / comment / criticism / ....

 

Your waymark will be entered in the Waymarking.com database for others in the community to read and enjoy. The usefulness of your waymark to the community is dependent upon its completeness and correctness. Please take ordinary care in both identifying the position of the waymark and in providing a clear and correct description, and proofread your waymark entry carefully prior to submission to remove obvious spelling and grammar grammatical errors.

 

There's no voting mechanism in place (yet), so we'll have to hammer this out in this forum.

 

Thoughts?

 

Well I have carefully avoided getting into this debate but I did have to correct the grammatical error. I hope you aren't offended but grammar is a noun, grammatical is the adjective :rolleyes: . Other than that the wording sounds good to me.

 

Welcome to the debate! Yes, grammatical is the adjective form, but since "spelling" is a noun (and similarly modifies the word "error"), isn't grammar also appropriate?

 

No offense taken...it's another opportunity to learn, which is always a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

ok I will jump into the fray. I think the requirements as they stand should remain. At this point in time I think changing the requirments is not needed. What is needed is for all officers to& members to agree and accept the waymark if the stated requirements are met and if there is a glaring spelling error a follow up friendly message is acceptable and I believe they would then make the adjustments this has happened to me when I spelled something wrong. Also if a waymark is accepted by one officer and another feels it should not have been accepted the officer who thinks something is amiss should never decline until speaking with all officers and if all agree then the leader or designate should contact the creater of the waymark giving them the opportunity to chanr it up with a time limit and if it is not changed within the time thenm and only then should it be declined. Remember that the poter of this issue is also a member of the category as is several others who believe that spelling and grammer should not be an issue or a requirment i feel a poll of all members as to how they feel should happen then the officers take that into consideration and all officers should agree, until that happens I feel wording and changing is premature.

 

ps my spelling and grammer are prurposeful

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

There are 23 members to the group:

Regular Members:

Milbank, robert, Jeremy, cache_test_dummies, silverquill, LSUMonica, Crystal Sound, Marky, Shorelander, TheBeanTeam, MikeGolfJ3, showbizkid, Sketcher1, Schreddzki, Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

 

Officers:wilsonjl,Chapterhouse Inc, Ambrosia, SpecialEd, Team Geo Duo dustyroades & geo Gordie & myself

 

I desire no change at this time and wish the waymark to be approved if it meets the stated requirments, spelling & grammer should never have been an issue in the approval process. I strongly feel that the waymarks should have been approved and emails sent afterwards congratulating them on there new waymark and ask nicely for the spelling corrections. This is the way I feel we should preceed when approving waymarks. To change things up when I know we are not in agreement is premature.

 

If I am correct in my memory cache_test -dummies also echoed this as did Tsegi Mike & desert Viking,Special Ed & Team Geo Duo ( These people are all members and should have a voice too.

 

Please note that it was a member who first posted on April 13 to have this clarified in another thread. As I see it now at least too of the general membership agree that it should have ben approved and then a polite email sent asking to update the lovely waymark would have been better. And Three officers agree that spelling & grammer should not be criteria in the approval process. Until we have more input from the whole membership, no changes should happen. We do need to all get on the same page. I ask for all members to chimei.

 

I also think that a link asking Rose Red to reconsider her decision and join back up would be very nice, as I now that she is very much into history , had the email feature for groups been working I do not think she would have resigned, we just needed to all agree, and if we had had her perspective as officers we could make an informed decision. But I currently believe we are still not all on the same page yet. Maybe our leader could send through the pofile page to all 23 members asking how they feel would help us move forward, then let all officers know what the concesus was and then we all agree to change or not and accept if all requirments are met.

 

Remember we all voted Yah on the requirments as they stand!! when it became a catagory and that is how we should approve waymarks, with no other criteria being looked at.

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

I desire no change at this time and wish the waymark to be approved if it meets the stated requirments

If I am correct in my memory cache_test -dummies also echoed this as did Tsegi Mike & desert Viking,Special Ed & Team Geo Duo

 

Add TheBeanTeam to the echo list.

Share this post


Link to post

Running Tally

 

All desiring no changes and to approve without spelling & grammer issues as the requirments now stand with no editing.

Members :

TheBeanTeam, cache_test -dummies, Tsegi Mike & desert Viking, Crystal Sound, Shorelander, showbizkid ( Polite email)

Officers:

chstress53, Special Ed & Team Geo Duo

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe our leader could send through the pofile page to all 23 members asking how they feel would help us move forward, then let all officers know what the concesus was and then we all agree to change or not and accept if all requirments are met.

 

 

I've just tried twice, and the email feature isn't working correctly (at least for me). Would you mind trying? Perhaps you'll have different results. Thanks....

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe our leader could send through the pofile page to all 23 members asking how they feel would help us move forward, then let all officers know what the concesus was and then we all agree to change or not and accept if all requirments are met.

 

 

I've just tried twice, and the email feature isn't working correctly (at least for me). Would you mind trying? Perhaps you'll have different results. Thanks....

 

I will try from the other site as it is not working for me here either.

 

i hope they have gone though all sent.

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

I've been watching the thread, but have remained outside.

 

I have to agree with chstress53's comments.

 

Although spelling & grammer are important, I dont see it as a show-stopper. The requirements should remain as-is. A polite email pointing out errors would be proper, especially in the case of a "key word" being misspelled.

 

The ability for an officer to make edits & changes to a listing would be beneficial.

 

I have several marks that have been listed in my Ohio Historical Marks category that need some "fixing" (errors that were noticed after approval). In the past I have sent an email to the owner requesting the fix. Sometimes it would probably be just as easy to fix it myself.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I will try from the other site as it is not working for me here either.

 

i hope they have gone though all sent.

 

Thanks...the email came through just fine.

Share this post


Link to post

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

 

This is a flat out brilliant solution! If I had this capability, I'd run with it and avoid the unpleasantness.

 

Jeremy, I hope the techies can make this a reality.

 

And can I say that I've logged new waymarks and approved them and missed my own typo's. We are none of us perfect. I like the polite e-mail suggestion for now. Then hopefully officers can edit waymarks when this function is possible. (I wish there was some way to incorporate spell check into the submissions process.)

Edited by showbizkid

Share this post


Link to post

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

 

This I agree is brilliant!.

Share this post


Link to post

If I may....

 

One of the things I was told to change in order for one of my waymarks to be acceptable was not grammatical but stylistic. I gave the history of the building in one paragraph, then posted an opinion about what a fine resort it still is today in another paragraph. I was told to combine them. If the waymark category managers can edit for stylistic things, then it ceases to be the creation of the person who submitted the waymark. If you have that option, how much editing by the manager is acceptable?

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to say that as long as the typo is not a show-stopper, I'd be for keeping the requirements as-is and not requiring perfect grammar and spelling.

 

TM&DV bring up an issue that I think is crucial to any consideration of implementing Officer editing. Unless I made some eggregious error, I would rather my stylistic decisions remain intact instead of having someone futz with them. To be clear, I think that I, if given the opportunity, would correct minor typos in extant waymarks in categories I am an Officer of. However, I would rather people not red-pen my waymark writeups on the basis of different style manuals or whatnot.

 

Basically, if someone read that and said to themself, "He ended a sentence with a proposition!" and hurriedly rewrote it, I'd be upset. But if someone noticed I misspelled "egregious", then I would indeed appreciate the correction. How to program the system to allow that would be difficult at best.

Share this post


Link to post

Add a spell check to the waymark creation.

My guess is that that would work as well as the forum's automatic topic case-correction - pretty good, keeping the biggest violations out; but not fixing everything, and being downright annoying some places.

Share this post


Link to post

I have taken the liberty and added "as the requirments now stand with no editing providing it meets the stated requirments.." to the Tally post. To make it easier (I think) then starting a new tally , if you disagree let me know, and I will remove you from the list. I think this will take care of the stylistic issue.

 

The current Tally:

 

 

All desiring no changes and to approve without spelling & grammer issues as the requirments now stand with no editing provided it meets the stated requirments.

Members :

TheBeanTeam, cache_test -dummies, Tsegi Mike & desert Viking, Crystal Sound, Shorelander, showbizkid,Schreddzki

Officers:

chstress53, Special Ed & Team Geo Duo

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to say that as long as the typo is not a show-stopper, I'd be for keeping the requirements as-is and not requiring perfect grammar and spelling.

 

TM&DV bring up an issue that I think is crucial to any consideration of implementing Officer editing. Unless I made some eggregious error, I would rather my stylistic decisions remain intact instead of having someone futz with them. To be clear, I think that I, if given the opportunity, would correct minor typos in extant waymarks in categories I am an Officer of. However, I would rather people not red-pen my waymark writeups on the basis of different style manuals or whatnot.

 

Thanks for the email asking me to weigh in, chstress53. After wading through all the posts, I have nothing more to add to the discussion that hasn't been covered already. I think that Shorelander's post quoted above best reflects my feelings on this issue.

 

Schreddzki

Share this post


Link to post
... and said to themself, "He ended a sentence with a proposition!"
<_<:lol: Sorry, I couldn't resist - I almost fell out of my chair when I read that!

 

I agree with chstress53's comments.

 

I do not agree with the proposal that officers should be able to edit waymarks. That WILL cause a problem and flare-up in the forums. How much editing can be done? Delete whole sentences? Add stuff like "I don't agree with some of this --- editor"? Change from U.S. spelling to Canadian spelling or vice versa without knowing you're doing that?

 

I suggest alternatives:

1. Accept the waymark and then email the waymarker with a request to change this or that spelling, grammar, or whatever item and explain in general why you care to have the things corrected.

2. Neither Accept nor Deny the waymark, and instead email the submitter, asking that the submission be edited. I think this can be done, but I'm not sure.

3. Groundspeak include a third option (button) called "Edit Request" or some such name next to the Accept and Decline buttons. This would have a comment field and generate an email to the submitter requesting this or that change be done. I realize this amounts to about the same thing as Decline, but the standard email introducing the comments could be done in such a way as to say this is an interim step in getting to Accept. There would have to be some programming support for this to take the submission off the "to do" list, etc. but the psychology would be better than either the slam-dunk Decline or getting into officers re-working waymarks to some unknown amount.

Share this post


Link to post
...

3. Groundspeak include a third option (button) called "Edit Request" or some such name next to the Accept and Decline buttons. This would have a comment field and generate an email to the submitter requesting this or that change be done. I realize this amounts to about the same thing as Decline, but the standard email introducing the comments could be done in such a way as to say this is an interim step in getting to Accept. There would have to be some programming support for this to take the submission off the "to do" list, etc. but the psychology would be better than either the slam-dunk Decline or getting into officers re-working waymarks to some unknown amount.

 

Your options are well thought out and worth discussing.

Share this post


Link to post

What if waymark entries were implemented as a wiki, with editing rights limited in some way? Wouldn't that solve many of the problems we're discussing in this thread?

Share this post


Link to post

I suggest alternatives:

1. Accept the waymark and then email the waymarker with a request to change this or that spelling, grammar, or whatever item and explain in general why you care to have the things corrected.

2. Neither Accept nor Deny the waymark, and instead email the submitter, asking that the submission be edited. I think this can be done, but I'm not sure.

 

These alternatives are available today. They do take additional time, however, which some reviewers may not be willing to do, causing waymarks to sit in the "to be reviewed" queue.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I'm a non-officer member of this group, and this is the first I've heard of this controversy. I just happened to be browsing the forums. But, I've perused the thread and will add my comments. (If someone objects to my beginning a sentence with a conjunction, I refuse to apologize).

 

I've been known to be a perfectionist grammarian, but some of the examples given cross the line into the ridiculous. That said, neither grammar nor spelling is the issue. Writing style is not the issue. The issue is, it seems to me, the whole approval process. Suppose someone feels led to reject a waymark for some other "picky" reason? Maybe the photo should be cropped or touched up. Maybe the reviewer doesn't agree with the evaluation of the submitter. One could imagine a number of areas of dispute.

 

As long as we have this group management system, there will be no escape from this. We can hope for every reviewer to be sensible and consistent, but the potential for individual idiosyncrasies is inherent in the system.

 

In my view, it is up to the leader to provide leadership. I'm an officer in one group in which the leader insists on a very particular format for waymark names, so we follow his guidelines in approving or declining submissions, even though I may not agree with him. In the case of grammar, spelling, and writing style the group leader should communicate his/her expectations to the officers and try to come to some sort of consensus if there are genuine differences of opinion. Clearly, some sort of adversarial or competitive spirit within a management group is horrendous, and there is still the possibility of a rogue officer. There is a process for dealing with this in extreme situations.

 

Whether group leaders should have the ability to edit submissions is problematic. There have been many times I wish I could have done a quick edit rather than sending the submission back to the submitter. As simple as that seems, however, it may be fraught with more problems than it would solve. People can be really touchy about having their work edited for any reason. I would definitely be opposed to extending editing privileges to all officers! The potential for abuse is just too great.

 

The best way to handle simple edits for grammar or spelling? At the moment, I'm on the side of approving with a request for the needed corrections rather than straight rejection. If this is too uncomfortable for a reviewer, maybe we could have a third option -- something like "Returned for editing." This would be less threatening, but would still allow the corrections to be made until the corrections are made.

 

Of course, my real preference, as a member of this group is just to lighten up! Even for grammar purists, this is NOT about grammar or excellence in narrative writing! When these things detract from our enjoyment of the hobby, then we're on the wrong track. A more balanced approach will get us a lot further down the road. Just remember not to carelessly split an infinitive! (See! There are even differences of opnion concerning grammar, not to mention writing style)! After all, ending a sentence with a preposition is just nonesense up with which we should not put!

Share this post


Link to post

 

The best way to handle simple edits for grammar or spelling? At the moment, I'm on the side of approving with a request for the needed corrections rather than straight rejection. If this is too uncomfortable for a reviewer, maybe we could have a third option -- something like "Returned for editing." This would be less threatening, but would still allow the corrections to be made until the corrections are made.

 

Aha! This one got by me even afte two proof readings! See how easy it is? Rewrite the last sentence:

 

"This would be less threatening, but would still allow the corrections to be made before final approval."

 

I would add that this also indicates that the submission is otherwise fine and has been accepted in substance.

 

One additional thought -- requiring revieweres to check for grammar, spelling and writing style places an unnecessary burden upon them. We are not all grammarians, after all! Maybe we should limit officers to those who have a masters degree in English, or at least pass a 500 question grammar test!

 

Enjoy!

Share this post


Link to post

"This would be less threatening, but would still allow the corrections to be made before final approval."

 

You still fail. That sentence shouldn't have a comma. :):D

Share this post


Link to post

Has this issue been resolved? I'm just getting started with Waymarking, and have noticed at least one building that would fit this category, but if I have to worry about perfect grammar and speeling, I'm not going to waste my time, I'll stick with other categories.

Share this post


Link to post

Has this issue been resolved? I'm just getting started with Waymarking, and have noticed at least one building that would fit this category, but if I have to worry about perfect grammar and speeling, I'm not going to waste my time, I'll stick with other categories.

 

Yes, it has been resolved. I have listed 138 now without an issue (and another hundred or so in the que for me to find time to enter). This issue should be considered history and a part of the learning process on group dynamics.

Edited by BruceS

Share this post


Link to post

Has this issue been resolved? I'm just getting started with Waymarking, and have noticed at least one building that would fit this category, but if I have to worry about perfect grammar and speeling, I'm not going to waste my time, I'll stick with other categories.

 

Yes, it has been resolved. I have listed 138 now without an issue (and another hundred or so in the que for me to find time to enter). This issue should be considered history and a part of the learning process on group dynamics.

 

Good to hear. Now, when I find some time, I'll get on those ones I had in mind. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Oh, shoot. I just noticed this thread. I'm sorry that I must have missed this email! And now my computer has slowly died and it's at the doctor's at the moment. I haven't been able to receive emails for a couple weeks, and who knows how much longer. I'll have a million emails when I get the computer back, don't know how I'll sort through them all. :anicute::rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

In the future I expect that we'll just allow category group officers the ability to make edits to individual waymarks. That way they can avoid conflict with the thin-skinned.

I don't like this at all. The reason is because sometimes things are written a certain way on purpose and unless you visit the place or know the culture then the "correction" you are making may change something that the waymark owner is trying to get across to the finders.

 

The catagory managers should work WITH the waymark owner in setting up the waymark. If catagory managers are allowed to edit waymarks (without the waymark owner being able to approve or disapprove the changes before they "go live") then that will be seen by some waymark owners as going behind their back.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

G'day

 

I would have thought a nicer way to handle these minor edits would have been to approve the waymark whilst asking for the edits. To me that is reasonable and would not have resulted in upsetting people and now having people discouraged from posting waymarks.

 

This is the approach we take at BackpackGearTest.org with reports which have minor edits picked up just before finalisation or even after uploading.

 

Regards

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post

seeing how this thread is quite old, i believe that the issue has been resolved, has it not? i created the group, which the created the category. i know nothing about the issue, other that what was read here. does the OP writer have anything more to say? maybe this rant thread should be closed, and GENERAL discussions could be held in a GENERAL NRHP discussion thread....personally, i have had no problems whatsoever in submitting marks in this category.....

 

one must read all submition guidelines prior to creating a submition.....this is why they are included at the top of the submition page....

Share this post


Link to post
one must read all submition guidelines prior to creating a submition.....this is why they are included at the top of the submition page....

 

G'day

 

Ahh, but I believe the OP did exactuly that, but there is no submission requirement for correct grammar (at least in the eyes of the approver) or spelling :D

 

Maybe there should be a guideline for actually reading and comprehending what others have said in forums before posting replies too. :D

 

Have a nice day or rather evening or better still both at your end of the world.

 

Regards

Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
one must read all submition guidelines prior to creating a submition.....this is why they are included at the top of the submition page....

 

G'day

 

Ahh, but I believe the OP did exactuly that, but there is no submission requirement for correct grammar (at least in the eyes of the approver) or spelling :D

 

Maybe there should be a guideline for actually reading and comprehending what others have said in forums before posting replies too. :D

 

Have a nice day or rather evening or better still both at your end of the world.

 

Regards

Andrew

 

i was not directing this at the OP. just stating so that it was out there....it seems that this all arose from one members pickyness, and turned into a rant. the only reason i referred to the OP was that he/she has the power to close the thread.

if there ever is a category that does not approve marks due to spelling errors, i will never submit any....if this 'spelling bee' is so consenscious (is that spelled right?) about others abilties, i would like for someone to browse all my submitted marks and find my errors.....i barely find time to submit, much less go back and seek such nitpicky errors.

 

i would like to see a spell check function added to the submition/logging/forum pages....then it would be a valid requirement. but then whose spelling is right? the OZ (british) or USA (american) way?

 

which colour is your favorite color?

 

as it stands i have spent too much time on this subject. on to more important things than how to spell a word.

Share this post


Link to post
seeing how this thread is quite old, i believe that the issue has been resolved, has it not?

 

Nope, it wasnt resolved as far as Im concerned. However, eventually I figured out that Im dealing with a lost cause. My view on this situation doesnt seem to matter to most people, so I have let it go.

 

one must read all submition guidelines prior to creating a submition.....this is why they are included at the top of the submition page....

 

I read the submission guidelines. Had I been rejected on that basis, I would not have made a fuss. I had almost all of my waymarks in this category denied, 2 of them AFTER they were approved, solely because one member did not care for my 1) spelling, 2) choice of words, or 3) style of writing, or any combination of them. One waymark was denied because I had street as St not St. or Street. A period was the SOLE basis of the denial. You may call it a rant, but when a waymark that meets the submission guidelines on all points is denied for a period, then I feel something needed to be brought up about it.

 

the only reason i referred to the OP was that he/she has the power to close the thread.

 

Most threads are not closed. I see no reason to close this one. You may dismiss this as a rant, but it is a legitimate complaint about something that was going on. Maybe still is going on for all I know. I havent submitted any more waymarks to them.

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...