Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Glenn

Suggestion For A Third Review Option

Recommended Posts

Waymarks can be accepted or declined. My suggestion is for a third option. If a waymark needs only a minor edit (for example, for speeling or grammor) or is lacking a picture there should be a third option. This would simple be a third status letting the waymark owner know that their waymark is in limbo until they make the corrections and not completely declined. Unfortunately, I can't think of a good name for this limbo status.

Share this post


Link to post

I suggested the same thing back here. However, I think there really doesn't need to be a third option. In a decline message, just explain what the situation is. Something like: "This is an excellent waymark, but please re-submit it with "stachoo" changed to "statue"."

 

Generally though, I just accept the waymark and in the accept message, suggest that the submitter re-edit the waymark and do a change.

Share this post


Link to post

what about adding a 'logging' choice, like on GC.com, stating that you have a correction for the mark (speling or gremmar), or have additional info that should be incorporated into the mark (background information)....thus moving towards the peer review process.

 

note: thus, to classify them from the 'notes' posted.....as in: if i was armchair Waymarking, i would post a note to a really cool mark i found, making comments about how i hoped to maybe visit it......i had someone do this for a GA hist marker last year, saying thanks for the history lessons.....and thusly, posting a note does not affect visit stats, but should be categorized somehow (as on Gc.com, on 'your account' you can sort the recent activity by 'finds', TB drops/pickups, notes posted, ETC......)

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...