Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Jake39

Double logging requirements.

17 posts in this topic

After submitting one of my "Waymarks" I received the following response.

"Per the description of this group, you cannot specify additional logging requirements."

As a "Category" owner" I post: Additional logging requirements might be required by the "Waymark" owner! as I feel the "Waymark" visits belong to the "Waymarker" not the "Category" owner!.

I, as a "Waymarker" receive notices if my "Waymarks" has been visited but not as a "Category" owner, therefore I feel that the "Waymarker" should have the right to add additional or no requirements.

 

Below are my standard "Waymark" requirements posted on every Waymark I submit.

If you log a "Visit" please state if actual or virtual with a short description.

A "Visited" only will be deleted A.S.A.P.

..How does everyone else feel about 'Category" owners stipulating "Logging requirements"?

 

Added later from another "Category":

Visit Instructions:

The only requirement is to visit this location physically, in person, and write about your experience.

This does not make sense. If you visit the "Waymark" not physically, but would like to post a comment about it, you are not allowed to do so? With my counters I can see there are many hits on some "Waymarks" but few comments, so I know some will only peruse the pages only while others will post in the log about a "Virtual" visit.

Edited by Jake39
0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a person who's interested in logging on the Waymarking site, at least not yet. :P

However, I think that the idea of a waymark establisher being able to require special logging requirements for their waymark is a problem-causing design concept. The fact that each category has different requirements for waymark establishing and logging makes the participation in Waymarking rather complicated already. You can't just go out and establish waymarks and do logs. You have to study up on each category before doing anything. If I'm out somewhere and see an X, I might think, "oh yeah, I know there's a category for Xs, so why not take a picture of it". Ohhhh noooo, you can't do that! You have to already know all the rules for the X category!

 

So now, here's a new dimension of restrictions - separate logging requirements for each waymark! :P

So let's imagine a vacation to some state 1,000 miles away. During the vacation you find that the area has lots of waterfalls. Let's waymark or log them! Even if you are familiar with the cateogry rules and know how to waymark in it, some might've been already waymarked so then your photo will work for a log when you return home won't it? Ohhhh nooooo, you can't do that!

For the X waterfall, you have to take a picture with someone standing right under the falls, for the Y waterfall, you have to take the picture at night, for the Z waterfall you have to take a picture of yourself holding a GPSr on top of your head like the frog, etc. etc. etc. Yuck! :P What a complicated mess!

 

..How does everyone else feel about 'Category" owners stipulating "Logging requirements"?
I think it's just fine. Waymark establishers making their waymark in the category additionally restrictive for its logs is bad, I think.
0

Share this post


Link to post

Each category is created basically by one person called the leader. They have a group of people that support their group and the desires of the leader. I'm being as basic as I can.

 

The requirements to place a new waymark into the category should be clearly detailed by the leader, possibly with input from the group. These things should be listed clearly in the category description. It is not for the person submitting a new waymark to decide that or what the logging requirements are.

 

If you do not like the method that a group is using to determine whether a waymark can be included, then ask for an explanation. If you don't like the explanation, then don't contribute to that category. That is exactly what happened to me with one group. I bear them no ill feelings, but I don't like a certain aspect of the group design and will not participate even though I like the category.

 

The notion that all waymarks should have the same logging requirements is certainly the best way to go. But it is true also that people should be reading the description before venturing out for any part of Waymarking.

 

Apply it as if it was a Geocache. Can you break the guidelines there? Of course not. What if you logged a virtual that said "No pictures" and you posted one anyway? It would be deleted.

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a person who's interested in logging on the Waymarking site, at least not yet. B)

However, I think that the idea of a waymark establisher being able to require special logging requirements for their waymark is a problem-causing design concept. The fact that each category has different requirements for waymark establishing and logging makes the participation in Waymarking rather complicated already. You can't just go out and establish waymarks and do logs. You have to study up on each category before doing anything. If I'm out somewhere and see an X, I might think, "oh yeah, I know there's a category for Xs, so why not take a picture of it". Ohhhh noooo, you can't do that! You have to already know all the rules for the X category!

 

So now, here's a new dimension of restrictions - separate logging requirements for each waymark! :ph34r:

So let's imagine a vacation to some state 1,000 miles away. During the vacation you find that the area has lots of waterfalls. Let's waymark or log them! Even if you are familiar with the cateogry rules and know how to waymark in it, some might've been already waymarked so then your photo will work for a log when you return home won't it? Ohhhh nooooo, you can't do that!

For the X waterfall, you have to take a picture with someone standing right under the falls, for the Y waterfall, you have to take the picture at night, for the Z waterfall you have to take a picture of yourself holding a GPSr on top of your head like the frog, etc. etc. etc. Yuck! :unsure: What a complicated mess!

 

..How does everyone else feel about 'Category" owners stipulating "Logging requirements"?
I think it's just fine. Waymark establishers making their waymark in the category additionally restrictive for its logs is bad, I think.

 

Haveing just made a 1500 mile run through 4 states and taking 500+photos, I'm sure that some of my finds have already been waymarked. There is no way that I could follow special rules for logging each waymark, since I wasn't looking for a specific waymark at the time. I think I created special rules for one or two of my waymarks, and they will get changed back. It's a whole different game when you start searching out the waymarks of others, instead of creating waymarks.

I keep a copy of all the category requirements, on paper, with me at all times for reference. There's no way that I can keep a paper copy of all waymarks that I might visit and their individual rules.

We need to K.I.S.S., or everyone will creat and noone will visit.

Edited by 8Nuts&MotherGoose
0

Share this post


Link to post

I think that after doing an extensive study that a really lot of visit logs that don't meet the logging requirements are still there. What's the purpose of having requirements if they're not enforced? I think the answer is that visit logs are so rare it's just really hard to delete them. I think that the only real use of logging requirements is to discourage people from using the site. I am seriously considering archiving the waymarks that I own that have logging requirements that I can't agree with. But, if the majority want to still consider Waymarks Geocaches that's fine with me. I just don't think it is helping the site to grow.

 

Mike

 

Thanks to Firefox 2.0 Spellchecker

0

Share this post


Link to post

Topic : Visiting a waymark!

I think that after doing an extensive study that a really lot of visit logs that don't meet the logging requirements are still there. What's the purpose of having requirements if they're not enforced? .-->..and who is going to be the enforcer?<-- I think the answer is that visit logs are so rare it's just really hard to delete them. I think that the only real use of logging requirements is to discourage people from using the site. I am seriously considering archiving the waymarks that I own that have logging requirements that I can't agree with. But, if the majority want to still consider Waymarks Geocaches that's fine with me. I just don't think it is helping the site to grow.

Mike

Thanks to Firefox 2.0 Spellchecker

So what you are saying is that you will "Archive" those "Waymarks"??? :unsure:

As you already know, you as the "Category" owner can not delete "logs of visits" (only the "Waymarker" can) and the only way to remove a log that does not adhere to your category specification is to Re-evalute and by removing the "Waymark" itself. Now what is the owner of the "Waymark" going to say? Do you go back and check on all of your categories waymarks to see if they adhere to "your" "Category" specifications?

Personally as a "Category" owner I would not stipulate any type of logging requirements except that they must contain more than just "Visited"

Forget about asking for those *#@+X GPS pictures -or of you or your dog in the photo, but do allow "Virtual" visits.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I guess my original feeling that Waymarking was going to be too complicated for me to try to understand gets more valid all the time. I'm about ready to give up.

0

Share this post


Link to post

After submitting one of my "Waymarks" I received the following response.

"Per the description of this group, you cannot specify additional logging requirements."

As a "Category" owner" I post: Additional logging requirements might be required by the "Waymark" owner! as I feel the "Waymark" visits belong to the "Waymarker" not the "Category" owner!.

I, as a "Waymarker" receive notices if my "Waymarks" has been visited but not as a "Category" owner, therefore I feel that the "Waymarker" should have the right to add additional or no requirements.

 

Below are my standard "Waymark" requirements posted on every Waymark I submit.

If you log a "Visit" please state if actual or virtual with a short description.

A "Visited" only will be deleted A.S.A.P.

..How does everyone else feel about 'Category" owners stipulating "Logging requirements"?

 

Added later from another "Category":

Visit Instructions:

The only requirement is to visit this location physically, in person, and write about your experience.

This does not make sense. If you visit the "Waymark" not physically, but would like to post a comment about it, you are not allowed to do so? With my counters I can see there are many hits on some "Waymarks" but few comments, so I know some will only peruse the pages only while others will post in the log about a "Virtual" visit.

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

If I read your waymark discription and information, I can then Log a "Visit" and say that I had a "virtual" visit and these are my comments,"...Put words in this space..."

 

I didn't have to do anything except sit in an armchair, read the information that you supply, and then log my visit.

IMO - If you "visit" the waymark "Not physically", and want to post a comment about it - it should be in the form of a "Note" to the waymark, not a "Visit".

I have "visited" many waymark discriptions (and the counter probably worked) just to see how discriptions were written by other waymarkers. Can I claim a virtual visit to them if they were owned by Jake39?

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Am I understanding this correctly?

If I read your waymark discription and information, I can then Log a "Visit" and say that I had a "virtual" visit and these are my comments,"...Put words in this space..."

 

I didn't have to do anything except sit in an armchair, read the information that you supply, and then log my visit.

IMO - If you "visit" the waymark "Not physically", and want to post a comment about it - it should be in the form of a "Note" to the waymark, not a "Visit".

I have "visited" many waymark discriptions (and the counter probably worked) just to see how discriptions were written by other waymarkers. Can I claim a virtual visit to them if they were owned by Jake39?

I agree with you that it should be "POST A NOTE"

(Only realized that there is a "WRITE NOTE" until I read your posting above and checked on the "TYPE of LOG")

It's up to you if you wish to 'post' a note when "visiting" my pages. I wouldn't mind if you left a "NOTE" showing you perused the "Waymark"

Maybe you like it :) or maybe not :)

As far as that goes, there are too many requirements for "Visits" anyway. Gee ... now I better do some changes :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'll bet Jake39's waymarks haven't received many more "Visits" then the rest of us. You see, 99% of us are honest people. Why make all of us jump through hoops, just to prevent the 1% from getting through.

As I said before - K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). I am aware of at least one geocacher/waymarker out there that is not stupid, simply uneducated. He cant spel werth a drn. His logs are very short for Geocaching, and I'll accept a short log from him for Waymarking, as long as the other requirments are met. Call it "Waymark Owners Perogative". And If the owner adds extra requirments, then I guess my "Visit" will be a “Note”. I won’t be happy, but I can live with it. (And I can still enjoy Waymarking without going to the rest of his hoopy waymarks)

0

Share this post


Link to post

After submitting one of my "Waymarks" I received the following response.

"Per the description of this group, you cannot specify additional logging requirements."

 

At this point, I am strongly in agreement with the quoted rule of whatever category that was. I think this idea of allowing waymark creators to force people to jump through additional hoops for logs is a negative value to Waymarking. Perhaps it's great fun for the waymark creator, but I feel it's nothing but a big pain for everyone else.

 

Are there any waymark loggers out there that have been thrilled to find that a waymark they wanted to log turned out to have additional logging requirements of its own, beyond those spelled out in the category description? Anecdotes anyone?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Lets try this again!

I never add aditional requirements except -"Visits only" will be deleted - as posted here before. The "Category Owner" can only delete the "Waymark" but not a "Visit or Note" if it doesn't suit him (that's the reason I like to see uniform requirements implemented by T.P.T.B.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Jake39 Posted Today, 02:59 PM

Lets try this again!

I never add aditional requirements except -"Visits only" will be deleted - as posted here before. The "Category Owner" can only delete the "Waymark" but not a "Visit or Note" if it doesn't suit him (that's the reason I like to see uniform requirements implemented by T.P.T.B.

 

I don't understand.

 

Are you saying that you've received a Visited Log on one of your Waymarks that the person said "Visited" and that was it?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well yeah, when I log my own I only put "Owner Visit"

 

But when I log everyone else's I do give a lengthy description. Do you think anyone in here would believe that I don't write a lot in my logs? :laughing::ph34r::laughing:

 

Personally I would rather see a log worth reading too. Basically typing TFTW is dull.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Akkkkk! How did I get sucked in to discussing logs in this Bloggers category??!?! :laughing:

(Oh it's a fine category, just not the kind of thing I thought we were discussing. :laughing: )

It has no waymark creation or logging requirements.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter since there's no way to visit it physically.

 

So, I will stand by my original opinion even with this unusual type of category - the concept of waymark creators making additional requirements of their own is messy and problematic, and a net negative value to Waymarking.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Jake39 Posted Today, 02:59 PM

Lets try this again!

I never add aditional requirements except -"Visits only" will be deleted - as posted here before. The "Category Owner" can only delete the "Waymark" but not a "Visit or Note" if it doesn't suit him (that's the reason I like to see uniform requirements implemented by T.P.T.B.

 

I don't understand.

 

Are you saying that you've received a Visited Log on one of your Waymarks that the person said "Visited" and that was it?

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

 

i have recieved logs like this.....as long as they have pics i dont mind this.....say what you want with a pic....you should always have something to say about your time there (talk about differences in what was seen versus the description/images in gallery), at least you could describe the weather.

 

Akkkkk! How did I get sucked in to discussing logs in this Bloggers category??!?! :laughing:

(Oh it's a fine category, just not the kind of thing I thought we were discussing. :laughing: )

It has no waymark creation or logging requirements.

 

I guess it doesn't really matter since there's no way to visit it physically.

 

So, I will stand by my original opinion even with this unusual type of category - the concept of waymark creators making additional requirements of their own is messy and problematic, and a net negative value to Waymarking.

 

neither did i, until i read your posting. now that i am thinking about it, that will be my forst ignored category--i will never have any interest whatsoever in that realm.....i never understood how this could be a category (other than figuring out their location--what are the coords for--for some sort of diabolical plan.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2