Jump to content

Category Peer Review


Recommended Posts

I would suspect a Groundspeak override. If so, I would want Groundspeak to have to give you an explanation just as nays have to explain their nay.

 

I never have seen what percentage of yeas is required to pass a peer review. Is that kept secret so it is easier to have a Groundspeak override?

Edited by TerryDad2
Link to comment

In the category creation FAQ, I don't see the mention of a Groundspeak override or "veto". As the voting process suggests that approval is performed democratically, if Groundspeak does hold a "veto", I vigorously suggest an update of the FAQ to explain that. Otherwise, the procedure is misleading.

Link to comment

While I'm sure that Groundspeak does everything in its effort to allow us to provide the kinds of listing the majority are in favour of, they simply cannot allow majority rule as the final decision.

 

Duplicates have to be removed, no question there. And by duplicate, I mean actual clone categories of already existing ones.

 

Inappropriate categories, let's say "Red Light Districts", or "Places to score good cocaine" would reflect poorly on Groundspeak even if 90% of the voters wanted it. Although, I'm surprised no one has started an "Exotic Dancer Club" category, or something of a more 'adult' nature. While that idea holds no interest what so ever for me, there are many that probably would want it. Either way, Groundspeak has to be able to control the content that is provided on their site.

 

I'm not sure which category you are referring to, but it does sound like either it wasn't a sufficient amount of YEA votes (if it needs to be 66% or something) or maybe Groundspeak used the power of veto because they felt it was too similar to an exisiting category.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
TerryDad2 Posted Yesterday, 07:25 AM

I would suspect a Groundspeak override. If so, I would want Groundspeak to have to give you an explanation just as nays have to explain their

Look at the last line of the page with the voting results, it usually has a note from P.T.B ...like good category, work on the variables, change this or that .. etc. etc.

Link to comment
TerryDad2 Posted Yesterday, 07:25 AM

I would suspect a Groundspeak override. If so, I would want Groundspeak to have to give you an explanation just as nays have to explain their

Look at the last line of the page with the voting results, it usually has a note from P.T.B ...like good category, work on the variables, change this or that .. etc. etc.

 

yes, those last comments always seem to have some powers in their tone.....

Link to comment

66% is a guideline we use but do not strictly adhere to. "Abstain" votes are not counted as either denials or approvals, of course. Until more people start using Peer Review [in greater numbers] we can't always rely on the voting outcome and will exercise a little executive decision making.

 

And yes, the final comments in Peer Review come from Groundspeak. We won't deny a category without providing a reason.

 

 

EDIT: to add what's in brackets

Edited by OpinioNate
Link to comment

66% is a guideline we use but do not strictly adhere to. "Abstain" votes are not counted as either denials or approvals, of course. Until more people start using Peer Review [in greater numbers] we can't always rely on the voting outcome and will exercise a little executive decision making.

 

I always thought that locating the categories that were in peer review was a little clunky. I had to go through several clicks to find them. It was not intuitive to find. That might be the reason that more people don't participate. The only way I know to see it is on the main page under Waymark Category Search. I was looking for it to be somewhere on my page. Telling me with a flashing icon that categories were in peer review. Similar to when a waymark is waiting for approval. Just a thought.

Link to comment

 

I always thought that locating the categories that were in peer review was a little clunky. I had to go through several clicks to find them. It was not intuitive to find. That might be the reason that more people don't participate. The only way I know to see it is on the main page under Waymark Category Search. I was looking for it to be somewhere on my page. Telling me with a flashing icon that categories were in peer review. Similar to when a waymark is waiting for approval. Just a thought.

 

It is one click away on the main page and one click away on the directory page, in both cases near the top of the page. I guess I have never thought of going to my page to look for it because it isn't mine.

Link to comment

Snip - Until more people start using Peer Review [in greater numbers] we can't always rely on the voting outcome and will exercise a little executive decision making....Snip

 

If I vote for an item in Peer Review, it disappears thereafter. If I want to find and prepare a waymark for it, I have nothing to get referance from. Sometimes I'm hesatent to vote, hoping to see more info, before it disappears with my vote.

 

Could there be a page with ALL "Waiting" items listed. Then we could read and think about them before they come up for a vote. I know there is a forum for new waymarks, but trying to wade through so many logs is time consuming. Do they all get onto the forum? It seems like there were some that poped up as finished waymarks without my seeing them in the forum. Maybe they were older than my search back in time.

Link to comment

I have discussed this with Sean and we decided to make some changes.

 

First, once you have voted for a category it will still remain in your Peer Review queue but have a color-coded checkmark next to it (red - deny, green - approve, grey - abstain).

 

You'll still be able to click on the category and read/add to what you wrote in the comments portion until it's completed PR.

 

Also, the link to Peer Review is moved to the "Lists" menu in the right column, and visible from every page. That should clear up the major issues.

Link to comment

We'll also do our best to clarify what a "peer review" is. It is not a flat out vote but a review of the listing by your peers. If everyone liked a category but only one person realized it was a duplicate of an existing category it could still be denied. That's an easy one while others aren't so cut & dry.

 

We'll do our best to explain the reason why one category or another is denied through the denial. Otherwise we can respond here mentioning the peer "votes" that resulted in the denial.

Link to comment

66% is a guideline we use but do not strictly adhere to. "Abstain" votes are not counted as either denials or approvals, of course. Until more people start using Peer Review [in greater numbers] we can't always rely on the voting outcome and will exercise a little executive decision making.

 

And yes, the final comments in Peer Review come from Groundspeak. We won't deny a category without providing a reason.

 

 

EDIT: to add what's in brackets

 

I would urge the acceptance criteria to be better defined and included in the FAQ. This will avoid confusion and dismay when categories are rejected. The policy of Groundspeak final approval could also be better explained in the FAQ.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
Link to comment

We'll also do our best to clarify what a "peer review" is. It is not a flat out vote but a review of the listing by your peers. If everyone liked a category but only one person realized it was a duplicate of an existing category it could still be denied. That's an easy one while others aren't so cut & dry.

 

We'll do our best to explain the reason why one category or another is denied through the denial. Otherwise we can respond here mentioning the peer "votes" that resulted in the denial.

 

I'm really confused. We have U.S. national parks and World national parks and people are submitting U.S. national parks as World national parks.

 

This seems to illustrate that overlapping categories can cohabit.

 

So why did PGI get rejected when it had a 61% in favor vote? There does appear to be some inconsistent judgement being applied here.

 

BTW Groundspeak reason for rejection.

 

"Sorry, but you have essentially only changed the listing requirements of an existing category. "

 

Now I'm wondering if I submit the category again and get 66% or more yeas, will Groundspeak just reject it again? Or will it pass?

 

P.S. we also have "Water Mills" and "Working Water Wheels".

Edited by RakeInTheCache
Link to comment

I counted 19 yeas and 12 nays on my Places of Geologic Interest peer review. Yet the category was rejected by Waymarking.com.

 

What's up with that?

 

All I can say is that we just had a category denied with ony 3 "nay" votes out of 31 total votes! Basically it was a decision by TPTB that the category, as presented, wasn't appropriate and needed to be redefined. So, the whole peer review process seems to be an advisory only -- it has no real meaning other than being the collective opinions of those who took the time to vote -- no power at all. I'm not saying, necessariy, that it should not be this way, but I do think the whole process of category approval needs to be clarified and openly stated so we avoid potential misunderstandings. (I'm not saying that denying this category was wrong, either. I think it really did need an overhaul before going live).

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...