Jump to content

Visiting Waymarks - No Photo


Recommended Posts

I've had a lot of my waymarks visited recently by a person the person who hasn't left a pic on any of them. Out of all the waymarks I've done, I've taken a pic at about 99% of them. Now I find it more amusing than anything as I feel that if you don't have pics the majority of time, then your credibility is perhaps lacking, but in the end it's all about honesty and fun. I was just wondering if anybody else has had that happened. They literally found about 160 of my waymarks with not a pic (lol).

Cheers

CZ

Link to comment

I cannot speak for that person, but I have decided to be more discriminating when adding pics to visits. For example, if I visit a waymark that is well documented picture wise, and I cannot see that I can add anything good to the pictures already pleasant, I hesitate to add a pic. I know that when I write up a waymark I do my best to present a clear set of photos that visually describes the waymark. A while back there was a discussion about segregating the original waymarker's photos from those of visitors. I can see the argument that in order to prove that one did indeed visit the waymark one should post a photo, but what about five decades from now? Will the more popular waymarks be layered in 100s of near identical photos?

 

I feel that a solution to this quandary will be to, at some future date, separate the original photos from those of visitors.

Link to comment

I only log visits when I have a picture. When I get visits I appreciate a good story as well, sometimes even more. But sometimes there is just no story to tell. I was there, I took a picture, I moved on, no special experience. A picture is always fine. A "been there" without any picure is a bit too cheap, but I accept even that. Why should I delete it? It's not my problem, they lazy logs have their name.

 

I am thinking about maybe logging some retro visits without pictures in the future. I have been to maybe 30 countries in the past without a camera or all pictures lost over the years. It's tempting, I might do it in the future, but only real stories. I have not decided yet.

Link to comment

I cannot speak for that person, but I have decided to be more discriminating when adding pics to visits. For example, if I visit a waymark that is well documented picture wise, and I cannot see that I can add anything good to the pictures already pleasant, I hesitate to add a pic. I know that when I write up a waymark I do my best to present a clear set of photos that visually describes the waymark. A while back there was a discussion about segregating the original waymarker's photos from those of visitors. I can see the argument that in order to prove that one did indeed visit the waymark one should post a photo, but what about five decades from now? Will the more popular waymarks be layered in 100s of near identical photos?

 

I feel that a solution to this quandary will be to, at some future date, separate the original photos from those of visitors.

Link to comment

When its someone I know, and they have a lazy log, but I KNOW that they pass the place to and from work daily, I don't mind it too much, especially on fast food joints and retail stores. Honestly there isn't a story to tell in those type of places. However, I have asked this one waymarker in particular that if he visits my Historical marks and the more off-the-wall out of the ordinary stuff to write up a better visit log.

 

If it is a complete stranger, I may write them and ask them about their lack of log and lack of photo. I don't think I would delete them, but I would question them about it.

Link to comment

Ah, the problems of visits and how to log them, what to accept.

 

While we'd all like to get a nice log with an interesting story or some new information and a couple of great photos, that hardly ever happens. Although I suggest photos for all of the categories I've written, sometimes I'd rather not have them. Why? Because most of them are really crappy snapshots taken on the fly or as a family vacation photo. They really detract from the waymark. So, here is a waymark I've spend a lot of time one - editing photos, getting good views, and now it looks shabby!

 

I do like to have something meaningful in the log, though. Almost anything about the site, the person's experience, etc. What is the point of posting. "Visited while geocaching in the area?" And, then pasting that same comment in the logs for a dozen waymarks? I get those strings fairly often.

 

Still, I almost never delete a log. (Only in the rare case of an obvious armchair logger). I've been tempted, though, on some of my waymarks to delete photos! Just don't have the time to police this part of Waymarking. My backlog is waaay to long for that.

Link to comment

I love Waymarking - I always upload a pic and try to make my visit log interesting.

 

I don't mind the "no pic" on my waymarks as long as they make an effort on the log, but one person in my area is really annoying me. One of his logs stated "passed within a mile of this site." This is a typical example of a log from this person. It was too late for me to delete it, and I've been warned not to "cross" this person by emailing him.

Link to comment

but one person in my area is really annoying me. One of his logs stated "passed within a mile of this site." This is a typical example of a log from this person. It was too late for me to delete it, and I've been warned not to "cross" this person by emailing him.

 

It's never too late to delete a log. In fact, I prefer to give the wm plenty of time to upload their visit photos (as others have been generous with me).

 

This weekend we got tons of wm logs "was in the area visiting a virtual." How nice of them to let me know about the virtual, yet say nothing at all about the waymarked item. :blink:

Link to comment

 

What is the point of posting. "Visited while geocaching in the area?" And, then pasting that same comment in the logs for a dozen waymarks? I get those strings fairly often.

 

 

What is with the new waymarks that have only "Found this while geocaching" in the short description? Can they not write one sentence to describe the waymark other than it was spotted while geocaching? It's bad enough to see this cut and paste for visit logs, but for posting of new waymarks?

Link to comment

 

What is the point of posting. "Visited while geocaching in the area?" And, then pasting that same comment in the logs for a dozen waymarks? I get those strings fairly often.

 

 

What is with the new waymarks that have only "Found this while geocaching" in the short description? Can they not write one sentence to describe the waymark other than it was spotted while geocaching? It's bad enough to see this cut and paste for visit logs, but for posting of new waymarks?

 

Geocache log "TFTC"

Waymark log "Visited when on holiday/vacation" the Waymarking equivalent of "TFTW"

 

Seems the newer cachers (and Waymarkers?) are unable to "Write about your experiances" in a log.

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

Yes, we've all seen these brief comments for VISIT logs, but this is the first I've seen them in the short description of new waymarks POSTED!

 

The creator of a waymark should be able to say SOMETHING in the short description besides "Found this while geocaching."

I'm amazed that those waymarks could be approved, but perhaps I don't understand the approval process well enough.

Link to comment

A search for these words brings up dozens of waymarks with the same or a very similar short description. Most of them are fairly old (pre 2008) so there's hope today they would not be approved anymore, but in the end it is up to the respective officers.

Link to comment

Whenever I have a new Waymark to enter, but can't find anything about it, or sometimes just don't want to take the time to search any info, I just look at the last entry in that category by our top leader in Waymarks, and use it as a template. Seems like most of the time the short description is a rewording of the Waymark title, and there is either nothing in the long description or a simple sentence saying couldn't find any information about said waymark if nothing is to found in Wikipedia. It doesn't get any easier than that.

Link to comment

I thought most categories had the following requirements to log a visit must contain at least one photo

 

Visit Instructions:

New logs to this waymark must contain at least one photo of the monument with your GPS in the shot as proof of your visit. No old vacation photos please. You must have taken a picture while seeking this waymark. Logs that don't meet the photo requirement will be archived.

 

One of the few times I have not uploaded a picture is when a subject appeared in multiple categories and I was on vacation with a very bad/slow internet connection. I uploaded a photo for my first log, but did not upload the same photo to the other occurrences of the same subject. Just as an FYI the owner did send me a note about not uploading photos, but he is one of my e-mail buddies and it was no big deal. I think I did add some photo after I got back home to ones I had previously logged.

 

As a PS I still maintain my stats site (top 10 visitors). I noticed two waymarker that all of a sudden posted a lot of visits. saopaulo1 is still #1 for the most visits, followed by ChapterhouseInc and then Metro2. If you have more than 2,800 visits, let me know and Ill gladly add you.

 

These are the ones I currently track:

 

1. saopaulo1 - Santa Clara, CA / Sao Paulo, Brazil --- 22,106

2. ChapterhouseInc - SWEPMT

3. Metro2@aol.com - San Diego, CA

4. Peter and Gloria - near Winnipeg, Manitoba

5. Lat34North - Atlanta, GA

6. Volcanoguy - Bend, OR

7. The_Simpsons - West Jordan, UT -- 5,517

8. Brentorboxer - Brentor Devon

9. Marine Biologist - Jacksonville, FL

10. Queens Blessin - Portland Oregon area

11. debbado - Seminole, FL

12. ucdvicky - California

13. onfire4jesus - Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

14. brwhiz -

15. nomadwillie - Uxbridge, MA --- 2,866

16. Sprinterman - Cartersville, GA

Edited by Lat34North
Link to comment

The most important first: visit logs are sent to the waymark owners. In the end they decide if they accept a log, not the officers.

 

Then: GPS pictures are a bit old school; many newer categories explicitly discourage them. On the other hand are old vacation photos generally accepted.

 

Many waymarkers prefer a good story, even when there is no picture, but this is not a general rule.

 

BTW: Great work with your visitor stats! Are they available on the web?

Link to comment

The most important first: visit logs are sent to the waymark owners. In the end they decide if they accept a log, not the officers.

 

 

When I first started Waymarking, I received an email from the owner of a waymark I visited. He was very nice, and just wanted to let me know that although he was fine with my visit photo, occasionally one of the officers went through visit logs and deleted those that did not have the proper documentation. But that was quite some time ago, when there weren't nearly as many waymarks!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...