Requiring changes when category guidelines are updated

[+silverquill]

There has been discussion here in the past about the proper way to update the posting requirements for a category. We all know that from time to time this is necessary, either for clarification or to address contingencies which had not been anticipated. There seems to be general agreement that making major changes in a category's direction or requirements is not in keeping with the spirit and best practices of the hobby.

 

Today, I got a rejection of a waymark dating from 2009 stating that it had been approved in error because it did not comply with a very specific format for the long description. To the best of my recollection, this waymark was created long before this change was made! I believe this is so because after the change was made, I got several rejections because the new format had not been followed (although I thought the requirement were vaguely written). So, I've used the new format since then.

 

It seems as if someone is going back through the category and declining previous waymarks that aren't in compliance with the new format. Just for the record, I think this is a very poor policy! I will NOT be rewriting any of these. So, if the category managers want to kick them all out, so be it. I've got too many new ones to get done without reworking old ones just to fit the whim of someone who wants everything done over again. I just think it reflects poorly on Waymarking.com and weakens the category.

 

Since whoever did this is hiding behind the anonymity of the system, I have no way of addressing the issue with them. I think this is also a mistake in how Waymarking.com has set up the group management system - just no personal accountability for one's actions. I really dislike hide-and-seek.

 

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm NOT really steamed by this. I've suffered no great loss (it was actually an uncategorized waymark that I was trying to help someone place). I just think this is an issue that needs to be addressed for the good of the hobby.

 

On to the next one . . .

[+Max and 99]

There has been discussion here in the past about the proper way to update the posting requirements for a category. We all know that from time to time this is necessary, either for clarification or to address contingencies which had not been anticipated. There seems to be general agreement that making major changes in a category's direction or requirements is not in keeping with the spirit and best practices of the hobby.

 

Today, I got a rejection of a waymark dating from 2009 stating that it had been approved in error because it did not comply with a very specific format for the long description. To the best of my recollection, this waymark was created long before this change was made! I believe this is so because after the change was made, I got several rejections because the new format had not been followed (although I thought the requirement were vaguely written). So, I've used the new format since then.

 

It seems as if someone is going back through the category and declining previous waymarks that aren't in compliance with the new format. Just for the record, I think this is a very poor policy! I will NOT be rewriting any of these. So, if the category managers want to kick them all out, so be it. I've got too many new ones to get done without reworking old ones just to fit the whim of someone who wants everything done over again. I just think it reflects poorly on Waymarking.com and weakens the category.

 

Since whoever did this is hiding behind the anonymity of the system, I have no way of addressing the issue with them. I think this is also a mistake in how Waymarking.com has set up the group management system - just no personal accountability for one's actions. I really dislike hide-and-seek.

 

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I'm NOT really steamed by this. I've suffered no great loss (it was actually an uncategorized waymark that I was trying to help someone place). I just think this is an issue that needs to be addressed for the good of the hobby.

 

On to the next one . . .

 

Wow, declining a waymark 2-3 years after it was approved is not good. I do understand that sometimes waymarks are approved in error, and may need to be declined at a later date, but years later seems ridiculous to me. I would consider it grandfathered in at that point!

 

I like that some categories (bicycle tenders, for ex.) post a date of a change in the description. That can help with issues like you describe. And even though I was not in complete agreement on the bicycle tender update, I thought it was great that fishingwishing used the forums to let everyone know of the change in requirement.

 

I really wish that IF a change must be made to a category that

1. ALL OFFICERS and members of the group are notified.

2. The change is announced in the FORUMS.

 

The category leader might consider the change a minor one, but regardless, if it was important enough to edit the description, let the officers know.

 

There are some categories that I've submitted quite a few waymarks to. I do not bother to check the category descriptions for those, and wouldn't know if a change was made. For unfamiliar categories, I do look at the write-up.

[+DougK]

Wow, declining a waymark 2-3 years after it was approved is not good. I do understand that sometimes waymarks are approved in error, and may need to be declined at a later date, but years later seems ridiculous to me. I would consider it grandfathered in at that point!

 

A while back I inherited the Coordinate Palindrome category and reworked the description. I had done an extensive personal study of palindromes and there were two types being submitted -

1. A full palindrome between the latitude and longitude, where the digits of the latitude influenced the longitude and vice versa, and

2. What I called a dual palindrome, one where the longitude and latitude were palindromes within themselves.

 

I had determined that the first kind occurred 360 times in the quadrant for a given longitude and latitude. I felt this frequency was high enough to limit the category to just that type. The second type occurred way more frequently, by an order of magnitude, and I felt that made them too mundane. The category was trending in the direction of full palindromes and I felt it was better to target that type.

 

I knew I'd create an uproar if I tossed the dual palindromes, so I created a category variable Dual/Full Palindrome. I edited every submission in the category and set the variable appropriately, grandfathering the duals in, but let it be known in the description that no new dual palindromes would be accepted.

 

Now the point is that during this study of every submission, I found two very old submissions that had no photographs! Well, it's very easy to construct a coordinate palindrome in your area and file it with no pictures, so I felt these did not even qualify, as a waymark in general, without pictures.

 

So I sent both submitters a note asking them to post some pictures with their waymark or have it re-evaluated and declined. I waited three months and then sent a similar note again. I waited three months again and when I got no response or pictures, I declined both waymarks.

 

I still run across waymarks, mostly from the early days, with no pictures. I'd consider these to be armchair waymarks and wonder how they ever got approved. Some even have visit photos now, but there's no default photo from the original poster. Were standards different in the beginning, because I don't think these look like good waymarks at all.

Edited May 25, 2012 by DougK

[+DougK]

Wow, declining a waymark 2-3 years after it was approved is not good. I do understand that sometimes waymarks are approved in error, and may need to be declined at a later date, but years later seems ridiculous to me. I would consider it grandfathered in at that point!

 

Story number 2: Recently, I was looking for a Veterans cemetery in my area. I pulled up the list for California and sorted in alphabetical order, so I could compare what had been waymarked with other lists of known possibilities.

 

What stood out was that the same cemetery had been waymarked twice, with coordinates over three miles apart. This wouldn't have triggered the proximity detector for the reviewer at approval time.

 

After looking at the website for the actual cemetery, comparing that with the info from the two waymarks, it became apparent which one was more accurate. The coordinates for one matched the given address for the cemetery, and Google Maps and Street View showed it to be there. The errant one was on a different road from the specified address and appeared, from Maps and Street View, to be in the middle of farm country. What was worse was that a waymarker had visited the correct cemetery and posted three pictures to the wrong waymark. I guess they didn't check their coordinates or street address either.

 

So I supplied my findings to the category head officer and suggested that the off-base entry be declined, otherwise they would have a duplicate in their category that would be misleading to others. The officer chose to decline the off-base entry, which happened to be the first submission of the two. Both of these waymarks were over five years old.

[+Max and 99]

 

What stood out was that the same cemetery had been waymarked twice, with coordinates over three miles apart. This wouldn't have triggered the proximity detector for the reviewer at approval time.

 

So I supplied my findings to the category head officer and suggested that the off-base entry be declined, otherwise they would have a duplicate in their category that would be misleading to others. The officer chose to decline the off-base entry, which happened to be the first submission of the two. Both of these waymarks were over five years old.

 

Yep, those are unfortunate circumstances, and I can understand the waymark with very incorrect coords being denied. I hope those situations don't happen too often!