Dilemma With Tacky Waymarks

[+StagsRoar]

I need some opinion here and hope that other category managers and leaders can give me some advise here on a couple of issues I have.

 

1/ Waymarks that are submitted to a category but are pretty cheaply done in terms of time and effort put into them. Now the problem is what may be little to no effort for one might well be a huge effort to another. But when you are trying to keep a reasonably high standard of presentation for waymarks submitted to your category that are just plain bland and non-descript. An example is my scenic hikes category - I had one submitted recently called Appalachian Trails and all it was was the coordinates , a statement saying it took 45 mins and a pic of running water that could have been a Sewer runoff in New Dehli for all it showed. I dissaproved the Waymark and told the submitter that it was a photo of nothing really and then asked if they would like to resubmit it with a more evident photo and it would be good if they could give a little more description. Well it came back a day or 2 later with a different photo of a shelter (and thats it) and no description as in the first time it was submitted. So my dilemma is: How far can you go in dissapproving a submission without seeming like a "Richard Cranium" ? And how much ground have I got to dissapprove a submission if I did not specify in the details that it must have a description of no less than 300 words or whatever? Other category owners must understand this dilemma.

 

Also

 

2/ What have other mangers done with categories that they have adopted that have waymarks in them that are previously approved and yet did not meet the details/criteria before the adoption - In other words waymarks that were just let in because the previous category owner obviously couldn't have cared less. Have we grounds to turn around and expel those as well?

 

Would appreciate some feedback here!

[+The Blue Quasar]

1/ Every Waymark in a Category that I created in one way or another reflects on me. I know I didn't create the Waymark listing but I accepted it, or one of the Officers accepted it. For me, I have no problem replying with some polite version of "Not good enough". I imagine that the Category is like a Library. I want the Patrons to find the Books pleasant and interesting, and thus I hold the Authors responsible for the success of my Library. I review the Book they submit, and if I don't like it, then it doesn't go on my shelf. I am not above making suggestions to improve the Book. Have done it, and will continue to do it.

 

2/ Nope, I don't go back. What has been approved in the past is done. That opportunity for review was not my decision and the original decision stands.

 

However, I have been known to request that people edit the name of their Waymark to match the naming convention if it didn't get corrected at approval.

 

The Blue Quasar

[Aushiker]

G'day

 

Personally I would politely reject it again. If it does not come up to scratch then it don't. I would rather see a smaller category of quality waymarks than a category with a lot of waymarks but deadloss ones. I think you are doing the right thing rejecting it. What do your fellow officers think?

 

As to the older waymarks, I guess I would take a different tack to Blue Quaser and look at a project of working with the waymark owners to bring them up to speed or turf them out opening the way for others to put in quality waymarks.

 

As Blue Quaser said, the category is reflective of the owner and the group and I would extend that to quality Waymarking as well.

 

My five cents worth.

 

Good luck

 

Regards

Andrew

[+StagsRoar]

What do your fellow officers think?

 

As to the older waymarks, I guess I would take a different tack to Blue Quaser and look at a project of working with the waymark owners to bring them up to speed or turf them out opening the way for others to put in quality waymarks.

 

As Blue Quaser said, the category is reflective of the owner and the group and I would extend that to quality Waymarking as well.

Regards

Andrew

 

I did actually send a group email from the category to the category managers about this issue (you included) but never got any feed back - maybe the email didn't go through. Thats kind of why I brought it to this forum but I definitely sought opinion of the other managers first which was my preference as if I am to reject or turf out any waymarks then i would surely want them in agreement with it.

 

I am a bit split on issue number #2 with regards to what your saying as well as what Blue Quaser is saying and I think they are both valid points and I appreciate the thoughts!

Edited July 14, 2006 by StagsRoar

[+Rose Red]

I believe that one should submit quality waymarks with great photos (one, two or more), good information, and correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. At the very least one should fulfill the requirements of the category. For example, when the Category is Ferry Landing/Terminal one should not submit a waymark with a photo of a ferry on a large body of water and no ferry landing/terminal in sight. The category is Ferry Landing/Terminal not Ferry Boat. If the requirements are not met, decline the waymark and politely explain why you are doing so. As to previous waymarks, do not delete them but send a note to the owner explaining the points that you would like them to correct or the photos that you would like them to submit. Consistency!

Edited July 15, 2006 by Rose Red

[+Jake39]

I believe that one should submit quality waymarks with great photos (two, three or more), good information, and correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. At the very least one should fulfill the requirements of the category. For example, when the Category is Ferry Landings/Terminals one should not submit a photo of a ferry. The category is Ferry Landings/Terminals NOT Ferry Boats. If the requirements are not met, decline the waymark and politely explain why you are doing so. As to previous waymarks, do not delete them but send a note to the owner explaining the points that you would like them to correct or the photos that you would like them to submit. Consistency!

Are you saying my photos of the "Chichimaun Ferry" at docksite (or sailing) would be rejected?

Did you want 2 - 3 or more pictures of a ferry landing site instead?

B o o o o r i n g !!!

[+The Blue Quasar]

Actually... the category is "Ferries and ferry landings"

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

Visit (or ride) the ferry landing / terminal, and provide a non-copyrighted photograph.

 

We encourage you to ride the ferry to get the complete experience, but realize that some people won't have the time (or need) to actually get underway.

 

While I understand the concept, it would be weird to post the actual landing without the ferry in the image. I can see some having nice entrance gates and such but I would think that the ferry being docked would be good too.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

I have one in the category, and I posted the ferry docked as my image. Trust me... there would be nothing exciting about posting a picture of a slab of concrete that is 10'x30'. But I would like to think that my description is interesting.

 

BQ's - Ferry Waymark

Edited July 15, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+Renegade Knight]

If this is the right waymark category here are the rules on posting a new waymark.

 

To post a scenic waymark and it's subsequent waymarks you must post at least 1 original picture of the hike - the picture should be of the attracting feature of this walk. Each picture must be original and taken by the person themselves while on the hike. To qualify as a scenic hike you must also post the starting coordinates for the trail head and the approx distance and or time needed to do this hike. As a general rule I am requesting hikes to be a minimum of 1.5 kilometres / 1 mile to qualify, but if you have a Scenic Hike you would like to submit less than this distance send me an email and I will take a look at it's merits. Scenic Hikes will include hikes up to, but not exceeding, an overnight hike. This means it may be a hike that would take in an average days walk in as well as an overnight stay and then be able to walk out the next day. Any hikes longer than this will be referred to the Long Distance Hikes category which provides for this sort of walk. Include as much detail as possible about the hike so others will know what they are getting into before attempting the hike themselves. Our purpose here is to document those Scenic Areas that people would not normally visit but you want others to come see simply for the beauty of the area. This category has been set to auto-approve but if it is deemed by myself or any of the Hiking Managers that the post is not meritable or up to scratch with what we want to achieve for this category then we will remove it.

 

Summarizing what you have said:

 

1) Take a photo

2) Provide Coordinates

3) Provide a distance and/or time for the hike.

4) We don’t want hikes longer than a day.

5) We don’t want hikes shorter than a mile.

6) We will make exceptions to time and distance based on merit.

7) Describe the hike.

8) If we don’t like it we will bounce it.

 

You did not say to describe the hike in a level of detail and prose quality that would make J.R.R. Tolkien weep from the sheer beauty of the submitted prose. The description of exactly what those 8 items mean isn't clearn on a few requirments. Especially #7.

 

People have different levels of skill when it comes to writing. What you are trying to accomplish is for hikers to submit scenic hikes that others may enjoy. Simple as that. The entire purpose of the written description of the hike is to provide the information that would let people choose a good hike. What you are not trying to accomplish is to rule out hikers who writing skills are lacking. They do have the ability to find hikes you would like to list. A better angle might be to work with those who show the interest to come up with a level of detail that fits your goals. Providing some examples might help. Build on their enthusiasm. Don’t just slap them down.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Rose Red]

When the Category is Ferry Landing/Terminal one should not submit a waymark with a photo of a ferry on a large body of water and no ferry landing/terminal in sight. The category is Ferry Landing/Terminal not Ferry Boat. This was only an example to make a point.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Rose Red

[+StagsRoar]

 

People have different levels of skill when it comes to writing. What you are trying to accomplish is for hikers to submit scenic hikes that others may enjoy. Simple as that. The entire purpose of the written description of the hike is to provide the information that would let people choose a good hike. What you are not trying to accomplish is to rule out hikers who writing skills are lacking. They do have the ability to find hikes you would like to list. A better angle might be to work with those who show the interest to come up with a level of detail that fits your goals. Providing some examples might help. Build on their enthusiasm. Don’t just slap them down.

 

I want to clarify something here without turning this into a bitch session and I am thinking that Renegade knight has kind of jumped from 1st gear into 5th without looking at what I have previously said.

I did acknowledge that people do have different writing skills and I made no suggestion that I was seeking out the works of Tolkien when asking for a waymark description. But in view of the waymark I was questioning it had NO Description other than to say it took 45 mins. And like I said - because I didn't elaborate in the details about wanting it XXX amount of words long, but I did ask that there be some description - maybe if it comes down to it I should stipulate a description criteria but I think that is going a bit over the edge personally. I guess I kind of hoped that people who have done Scenic Hikes and wanted to make a waymark for it would also want to put a little bit more effort into the waymark creation rather than just having the coordinates , a nondescript picture and nothing else.

If people want to see an example of what I am looking for in the category they really only need to look at previously submitted ones - in particular the ones I myself have submitted, to see the types of detail and the sorts of pictures that may fulfill the categories requirements. It does ask specifically for a picture of one of at least something of the attracting feature/s of the Scenic Hike as well.

I never intended to slap anybody down as was written - in rejecting waymark/s I have always given reasonable rationale for doing so and have suggested what they might do to beef it up a bit more but the particular one I had in mind when writting this in the first place, came back as shonky as it was when I first sent it back to "Return to sender". And clearly as I stated originally - I did not want to be a bit of a "Richard Cranium" to anybody in dealing with this issue which is why I brought this to the forums for suggestion in the first place.

But in the end - If it isn't liked it will be bounced. Thats the perogative of those that run categories and who have ideas as to how they want their categories to be presented.

[+Jake39]

Consistency

Yes ...Consistency ... (I see you also modified your previous posts.)

 

....but you did reject my "Waymark" on June 1st of the "Chi Cheemaun" at dockside and my "Description" of the ferry instead of the terminal.

So it will just sit there until someone else submits a better "Waymark"

 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

The following has been added later ...

Somehow it was not posted earlier in this forum---->

 

Sorry

I did change the title from "MS-CHI CHEEMAUN" to FLT-"TOBERMORY FERRY TERMINAL"...

 

--end of post!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

NEW--

 

--but the description about the "Ferry" wasn't changed to reflect the change of the title to "Terminal or Landing"

The Blue Quasar Posted Yesterday, 07:38 PM

Actually... the category is "Ferries and ferry landings"

---and how do you ----> (or ride) <---- a ferry landing? --and asks us to ride the ferry if you want only ferry landings and terminals. (doesn't make sense)

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

Visit (or ride) the ferry landing / terminal, and provide a non-copyrighted photograph.

 

OK... end of rant

Edited July 15, 2006 by Jake39

[+BruceS]

Consistency

Yes ...Consistency ... (I see you also modified your previous post.)

 

....but you did reject my "Waymark" on June 1st of the "Chi Cheemaun" at dockside and my "Description" of the ferry instead of the terminal.

So it will just sit there until someone else submits a better "Waymark"

 

Why was this one rejected? It looks like a landing to me. It is a landing with an added bonus of having a ferry actually at it. If I posted just a ferry landing for the river ferries along the Mississippi everyone would think it was just a short boat ramp for launching boats, mine will have ferries in them too.

 

Now getting it back on topic. I don't go back and try to fix those that came before I adopted the category though submitters have brought it up when they submit a less than complete waymark. I have had all the older ones pointed out which did not meet the requirements, I just reply the category is under new management and will require new waymarks to meet the standard.

Edited July 15, 2006 by BruceS

[+Rose Red]

Consistency

Yes ...Consistency ... (I see you also modified your previous post.)

 

....but you did reject my "Waymark" on June 1st of the "Chi Cheemaun" at dockside and my "Description" of the ferry instead of the terminal.

So it will just sit there until someone else submits a better "Waymark"

 

Why was this one rejected? It looks like a landing to me. It is a landing with an added bonus of having a ferry actually at it. If I posted just a ferry landing for the river ferries along the Mississippi everyone would think it was just a short boat ramp for launching boats, mine will have ferries in them too.

 

Now getting it back on topic. I don't go back and try to fix those that came before I adopted the category though submitters have brought it up when they submit a less than complete waymark. I have had all the older ones pointed out which did not meet the requirements, I just reply the category is under new management and will require new waymarks to meet the standard.

 

Resubmit your waymark and the Leader or someone else in the group will approve or reject it.

[+Jake39]

I want to thank ..wilsonjl - Leader ... for updating the "Category Detail" page. It now clearly states the requirements for posting a "Waymark" in the "Ferries and Ferry Landing". Category

 

Ferries and ferry landings

[+silverquill]

 

2/ What have other mangers done with categories that they have adopted that have waymarks in them that are previously approved and yet did not meet the details/criteria before the adoption - In other words waymarks that were just let in because the previous category owner obviously couldn't have cared less. Have we grounds to turn around and expel those as well?

 

 

Actually, I have one adopted category, Trappist Abbeys, that consists almost entirely of waymarks that do NOT fit the category, i.e. NOT Trappist abbeys. The best option would be to change the category name and description to be more inclusive, but apparently there is no way to do this. I have another adoptee, Dead Poet's Society, which the management group would like to expand to include other authors, and there are a few of these inherited waymarks, but, again, no way to change the category name.

 

As to waymarks that just may not conform to other requirements, a naming convention for instance, or may need tweaking in some way, I think it is best just to contact the waymark creator to see if they are willing to edit it or upgrade it as needed. I can't see just deleting someone's waymark that has already been published.

 

To the general issue of rejecting low-quality waymarks - - I think the first thing that must be done is clearly to state the requirements in the waymark description and requirements, including the quality expected. It doesn't seem fair to hold people to a standard that isn't clearly stated. Then, a fine print disclaimer should be included to the effect that the category managers reserve the right to reject a waymark submission that does not meet the stated standards. That may be a given, but it might help to have it in writing.

 

One of the quality issues I've encountered is photos that are barely recognizable as anything, or are thumbnail size. I've sent some of these back. Maybe they were cell phone pics.

 

People will choose the categories for which they want to submit waymarks based not only on their personal interests, but on the complexity of the requirements and the amount of work it takes to create the waymark. Some will relish the challenge of a creating a detailed waymark, and others will do only "park and shoot" categories. Sounds a lot like geocaching preferences, doesn't it?

Edited July 17, 2006 by silverquill

[+chstress53]

a little hijacking here myself. the title that Rose Red referred to is

 

Ferries and ferry landings, I had one of those rejected myself because it only had the Ferry and not the landing. I was successful and emailed the officers and appealed the decision and it is now a waymark with no changes in that category.

Now back on topic

 

Answer to question 1 Not approve outright with an explanation of how to get the waymark approved.

2 Those that have not complied before I feel are grandfathered in but I sent a polite email requesting the missing info and asking nicely for changes. ( I never would delete their waymarks as I consider them granfathered) Doing it this way all but a few in each category corrected the missing info, and Thanked me for the Category. I started out raving about their waymark and how good it is but it would be even better if this were added or changed. In several cases I supplied a link for them to add, serevarl people did not know how to do this and some had not figured out how to add a photo., and I made several more conections with waymarkers.