Duplicate Categories

[+chstress53]

I have noticed a new trend lately. First I post here http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...19&hl=carousels that I could not lead this new Category ( Have too many) and Bruce S agrees, and establishes a category and begins a write up, others join as a result of the forum thread and we think we are proceeding only to be preemted by someone who never posted to this thread but evidently read the thread and beat us to the punch. So we now have a defunct group. I have asked to join that group but no answer. This again is begining to happen in the Superb Steaks Category. Then NFA posted regarding Superb Steaks and again someone is attempting to take over the Category. What do you all think

[+Black Dog Trackers]

One problem here is that when a category is up for peer review, the names of the members of the group and not even the group's name appear with it. I guess the thinking is that, when it's time to vote on the category, you're not to be thinking of the personalities involved, and that's a good thing. But, here it is showing up as a possible problem.

 

It seems lately that some new categories have been formed without any announcement here in this forum. That was a bit surprising to me. I guess the idea is that such announcements are really just a way to get the needed number of officers.

 

However....

 

I think it would be better if a person or group that intended to manage a category was required to announce their category proposal in this forum. Even if the person doing the proposal has enough people already somehow, and doesn't want/need to get anyone else as the result of the announcement, it should start here anyway, IMHO. That would get rid of a lot of this new confusion and prevent people getting hurt feelings by being upstaged after they have done a bunch of groundwork and negotiation with each other.

[+The Blue Quasar]

So perhaps what would be useful is to create a "Development Directory" to complement the exisiting "Directory" we have now for completed Categories.

 

Oh oh, get comfy.... I'm on a roll with thoughts on this

 

 

There would have to a structure path for this... perhaps like

 

1. Form GROUP - Includes Group name, basic premise, and five tags for searching (more on this later)

2. Recruit GROUP Members - Either privately or openly

3. Create CATEGORY - Either as a Group, or Leader on their own. Includes content rules for "General Description", "Placing New Waymarks", "Visiting Existing Waymarks", "Officer Guidelines" and the tags from step 1 are automatically copied into the Category for searching the Directories.

4. Group votes on Category - same as now

5. Category goes to Peer Review - same as now

6. Category is published in the Directory - same as now

 

So if someone wants to FORM A NEW GROUP, when they start at step 1. the first thing would be that they enter the five tags. Once that happens, the Waymarking engine searches for GROUPS and CATEGORIES that already have ANY of those tags, and returns a list so that the person can look for possible duplication.

 

This also would help people JOIN A GROUP they would be interested in.

 

This concept already works in the Directory we have, but if it was applied during the formation of a new Group then many people could save a lot of effort in the development stage.

 

Another thing that would be handy, in the Peer Review is having a link that would show that same list of already existing Groups and Categories that have matching tags. It would sure be easier to see repetition instead of having to remember what else is out there already, or being created.

 

The list would have to be dynamic enough that it listed dates, like Group Creation or Category Creation. It should show which steps as above have been completed.

 

All of this could be done without the Forums or showing the names of anyone in the Groups or Categories.

 

Thoughts? It was kinda off the top of my head... like most things.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+chstress53]

I like the view from the top of your head.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I see two different situations:

 

1) Someone is working on category not realizing there is already a similar category in the works.

2) Someone is trying to create a category in 'stealth' mode, knowing full well there is another group already working on a similar category.

 

For the first case, BQ's five-tags method would probably work well. The natural process of creating a category in the tagged model would likely result in the separate groups being brought together before a category gets to peer review.

 

In the second case, BQ's five-tags method would probably not work. If the non-public group is really motivated to get their version of the category into peer review first, they could just assign irrelevant tags, allowing them to proceed with the category in stealth mode.

 

BDT's suggestion for a forum based discussion model would help address both situations, but ultimately, many people who participate in Waymarking are unlikely to want to participate in the forums.

 

In any case, I think it would be great to implement a solution for the first situation - it would be a shame for multiple groups with similar goals to be unknowingly working on the same category when they'd be happy working together if they knew about each other. So from that perspective I like BQ's five-tags model.

 

The second situation begs the question of who really owns the 'rights' to a category. Should this all be treated on a first-come-first-served basis? The first group that gets through peer review wins?

 

For the stealth groups, there is some public visibility here - their identities will be revealed if their category gets published.

[+The Blue Quasar]

The reason why I opted for suggesting that the 5 TAGS get created right at the beginning is that they become LOCKED until after the Category has completed the entire process beyond Peer Review.

 

These TAGS being made in Step 1 would solve many problems. Like new Officers could bail out if they see unrelated tags, and people searching for Groups would be entering a TAG to search and thus find ones of interest and not see the 'stealth' ones

 

But you are right that some undesirables could make 5 FAKE TAGS. Here is a minor change I'll suggest to solve that problem...

 

When a Category goes to Peer Review... the 5 TAGS are shown. It would be part of the Peer Review evaluation, as in if the 5 TAGS are obviously unrelated then people would decline it.

 

Remember too that I suggested that a link that would show other Groups that have any matching TAGS would be displayed.

 

If we are talking about STEALTH Groups, either you would see all these other Groups listed that match their TAGS and it would be caught, or you would see the 5 FAKE TAGS and it would be caught.

 

So, I guess that when a person wants to particiapte in Peer Review, they should be able to see the Category Proposal (which we already do see), a link to other Groups that share a common TAG whether completed or in development, and the 5 TAGS this Group is using for this Category.

 

This would only work if you could see Groups that have started, and the date that it formed so things could be compared thus an educated decision could be made.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

I tried to look at the top of my head, but it keeps moving out of the way