"ancient Evidence" Category Up For Peer Review

[+Miragee]

I created a Group for the "Ancient Evidence" category and it has been up for Peer Review for a couple of days now.

 

My category is in the same "class" as the Pictographs category that already exists, except this is for Bedrock Mortars (Indian Grinding Rocks) and other fixed-in-place evidence of prehistoric residents of the Americas. These might also include Yoni rocks and metates.

 

I do not know how many votes it needs. I've tried to find that information on the site and have been unsuccessful. Since this is a Holiday Weekend, I'm concerned it will not pass Peer Review, even though I think it is an interesting category.

 

TIA

[+TeamRJMK]

Please don't get offended but I voted "no" to your category.

 

I think the category description is great & is worthy of being a category but it doesn't match the category name. Your description focused on Native American artifacts but the title is something that doesn't distinguish between geographical areas.

 

I think you should consider expanding your description to include items found worldwide. (or if you really want to focus on American, then change the title to reflect that.)

 

I do think the idea is worthy & would really like you to resubmit it if it doesn't pass this round of peer review. I believe that there are other categories that have undergone revisions and have been successful the second time around.

 

~J of TeamRJMK~

[+honeymooners]

I created a Group for the "Ancient Evidence" category and it has been up for Peer Review for a couple of days now.

 

My category is in the same "class" as the Pictographs category that already exists, except this is for Bedrock Mortars (Indian Grinding Rocks) and other fixed-in-place evidence of prehistoric residents of the Americas. These might also include Yoni rocks and metates.

 

I do not know how many votes it needs. I've tried to find that information on the site and have been unsuccessful. Since this is a Holiday Weekend, I'm concerned it will not pass Peer Review, even though I think it is an interesting category.

 

TIA

[+honeymooners]

I created a Group for the "Ancient Evidence" category and it has been up for Peer Review for a couple of days now.

 

My category is in the same "class" as the Pictographs category that already exists, except this is for Bedrock Mortars (Indian Grinding Rocks) and other fixed-in-place evidence of prehistoric residents of the Americas. These might also include Yoni rocks and metates.

 

I do not know how many votes it needs. I've tried to find that information on the site and have been unsuccessful. Since this is a Holiday Weekend, I'm concerned it will not pass Peer Review, even though I think it is an interesting category.

 

TIA

[+honeymooners]

I like the catagory title but want to know why you aren't including the world. There is no archeological catagory and this would open up quite a few places people could post and you could always make subcategories by country, region, etc. Just a thought.

I created a Group for the "Ancient Evidence" category and it has been up for Peer Review for a couple of days now.

 

My category is in the same "class" as the Pictographs category that already exists, except this is for Bedrock Mortars (Indian Grinding Rocks) and other fixed-in-place evidence of prehistoric residents of the Americas. These might also include Yoni rocks and metates.

 

I do not know how many votes it needs. I've tried to find that information on the site and have been unsuccessful. Since this is a Holiday Weekend, I'm concerned it will not pass Peer Review, even though I think it is an interesting category.

 

TIA

[+Miragee]

Well, I'm new to all this. I chose the title "Ancient Evidence" because it covers more than just Bedrock Mortars (or Indian Grinding Rocks) which is the object I found last Saturday and wanted to list on Waymarking.

 

I also thought it followed the "pattern" of the "Pictographs" Category Group name which is "Ancient Graffiti."

 

This Category should fit under History and Culture, just like the narrow "Pictographs" Category does now.

 

In my description, I actually expanded it to include the "Americas" thinking these might be found in Mexico, Central, and South America . . . although I don't know that for certain.

This Waymark Category is for recording the coordinates of bedrock mortars (Indian grinding holes) and other evidence of Native American cultures who lived in the Americas in pre-historic times.

If someone else wants to create a Group for Archaeological Sites around the world, I'll Vote "Yes" on it. I don't think of Bedrock Mortars or Metates or Yoni Rocks as "archaeological sites." Chichen Itsa is an Archaeological site.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I don't think of Bedrock Mortars or Metates or Yoni Rocks as "archaeological sites." Chichen Itsa is an Archaeological site.

 

They are considered archaeological sites, in that human activity took place there, and they left evidence of that behind.

[Aushiker]

Please don't get offended but I voted "no" to your category.

Same here.

 

I think the category description is great & is worthy of being a category but it doesn't match the category name. Your description focused on Native American artifacts but the title is something that doesn't distinguish between geographical areas.

Agree and I gave a similiar reasoning for my no vote. The title suggests a broad brush, but the description was all about native americans. I don't have a problem with the focus of the category, but I do object to the assumption that "ancient evidence" is only Native American as implied by the category title.

 

I think you should consider expanding your description to include items found worldwide. (or if you really want to focus on American, then change the title to reflect that.

Agree 100% and reflected same in my no vote.

 

I do think the idea is worthy & would really like you to resubmit it if it doesn't pass this round of peer review. I believe that there are other categories that have undergone revisions and have been successful the second time around.

Doing a lot of agreeing here. I believe also that the category is worthwhile, just needs either the title or the description corrected to better reflect its focus.

 

Regards

Andrew

[+RakeInTheCache]

I also agree that the title should either be changed or the category definition broaded to include sites around the world.

 

My 2 eurocents.

[+Miragee]

The Category was approved and the Category name was broadened to "New World Ancient Evidence."

 

The name of the managing Group is still just "Ancient Evidence."

 

It is supposed to be listed in the "History/Culture" category like "Pictographs" are, but so far it isn't there. You cannot find it by doing a Category Search, but an Advanced Search for Bedrock Mortars will bring it up.

 

It will be interesting to see what sort of Waymarks are submitted, My idea for the category was for it to include subtle evidence of prehistoric people. These are the things you might find while out hiking or rock scrambling. That is when I have found these.

[+BruceS]

The Category was approved and the Category name was broadened to "New World Ancient Evidence."

 

The name of the managing Group is still just "Ancient Evidence."

 

It is supposed to be listed in the "History/Culture" category like "Pictographs" are, but so far it isn't there. You cannot find it by doing a Category Search, but an Advanced Search for Bedrock Mortars will bring it up.

 

It will be interesting to see what sort of Waymarks are submitted, My idea for the category was for it to include subtle evidence of prehistoric people. These are the things you might find while out hiking or rock scrambling. That is when I have found these.

 

To make it visible in the directory you need to go to edit category, then over to right you will see category settings, click that. Then make sure there is a check in the "List this category in the directory" box. By default it will not be listed in the directory, this allows to make adjustments to the category before it becomes public based on the feed back you recieved in peer review. The category is listed in the correctly under "History/Culture" it just is not visible.

Edited July 7, 2006 by BruceS

[+RakeInTheCache]

Yes, don't forget the important additional step needed to make the category visible in the directory. Took me some head scratching to figure that one out.