Decline of Previously approved waymark

[GT.US]

I know we have discussed this before, but I just got a decline for a waymark that was approved nearly 5 years ago.

 

On that point, I thought we had agreed that if the requirements changed, previously approved waymarks would be grandfathered, and noted as grandfathered so that they wouldn't set precident for the new waymarks.

 

In this particular case, I think the redenial was in error. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4HF0_Euro_Hotel_Cascina_Italy is the waymark, and this is the comment "Can you add some information about why you recommend it? ". I haven't tweaked the waymark at all.

 

I hope this was only a mistake, or their internet was slow and didn't load the full page? (and not ulterior motives on the part of the reviewer).

[+Max and 99]

I know we have discussed this before, but I just got a decline for a waymark that was approved nearly 5 years ago.

 

On that point, I thought we had agreed that if the requirements changed, previously approved waymarks would be grandfathered, and noted as grandfathered so that they wouldn't set precident for the new waymarks.

 

In this particular case, I think the redenial was in error. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4HF0_Euro_Hotel_Cascina_Italy is the waymark, and this is the comment "Can you add some information about why you recommend it? ". I haven't tweaked the waymark at all.

 

I hope this was only a mistake, or their internet was slow and didn't load the full page? (and not ulterior motives on the part of the reviewer).

 

It sure looks to me like you gave good reason for the recommendation.

 

I've had several waymarks declined because the reviewer didn't see the information on the page that WAS required and WAS provided. But to decline one 5 years after a waymark is approved.... that's just bizarre. I agree-IF anything changed, grandfather the old ones in and write an update on the category page.

 

I suspect this waymark decline was a mistake, in more ways than one. If this was an anonymous review, done 5 years retroactively, SHAME!

[+MountainWoods]

Doesn't look like it is declined now. It looks like a regular approved Waymark to me.

[+elyob]

...so many views but no visits yet.

[+silverquill]

There are only a few reasons why I'd deny a previously approved waymark, and maybe none at all after five years.

 

The waymark would have to be totally inappropriate for the category in order for me to decline it. Even if it lacked some requirement, I'd like just leave it, or if I thought it was critical, I might contact the waymark creator and ask for corrections or additions, but I wouldn't just decline it.

 

So, maybe do the tweaking if you can and send it back with a big sigh.

[+BruceS]

Did you get an actual decline or was it a decline of the changes to the waymark. Several of your waymarks in Italy have come up for edit reviews for adding the region/state. I know on several I have reviewed I have accepted the region/state change but decline changes to content as they really did not change. It still shows an approval date of 2008.

Edited May 29, 2013 by BruceS

[GT.US]

It was completely declined, decline message and all, I had to resubmit it. It was subsequently approved.

 

"Hello from Waymarking.com!

 

Your waymark, Euro Hotel - Cascina, Italy, has been denied for the following reason:

 

Can you add some information about why you recommend it?

 

It is not uncommon for waymarks to be denied on the first submission. Waymark category owners can be very particular and may insist that their rules be followed exactly as written.

 

Edit your waymark for resubmission

 

Happy Waymarking!

The Groundspeak Team"

[GT.US]

@Bruce The date is the posted date, the approved date doesn't show anytwhere.

 

@Elyob I can't imagine that it would be common for someone to check Waymarking.com before booking their hotel. Perhaps, if there were a high percentage of hotels waymarked, that might change. For today, I would guess the majority of waymark visits to a hotel would come from someone checking the nearest waymarks to where they were and realized they had stayed at a particular hotel.

[+BruceS]

@Bruce The date is the posted date, the approved date doesn't show anytwhere.

 

My error, was looking at the waymark page where the posted date shows, the approved date shows on the search page and I see there is was recently reapproved.

[GT.US]

In putting the clues together, I would guess that someone did an edit to it for the "state", and only part of the waymark showed in the approval dialog. So the reviewer scratched their head, and thought "How did this get approved"?, and entered into the decline process.

[+NorStar]

I've had two of my own have were retroactively declined years later. In at least one case it caused the removal a category in my 'posted' grid. To me, it was someone doing 'house cleaning' on waymarks that they felt should not have been approved in the first place.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

I've had two of my own have were retroactively declined years later. In at least one case it caused the removal a category in my 'posted' grid. To me, it was someone doing 'house cleaning' on waymarks that they felt should not have been approved in the first place.

 

Is this considered appropriate? I would hate to have that happen to us!!!!

 

What is the remedy here? It seems unfair to have an old long-approved waymark declined in this manner

[GT.US]

In the past, I have seen people go through and decline waymarks that were either incorrectly approved or rules changed and they no longer qualified.

 

Offhand, the category that did it isn't coming to me, maybe border crossings?

 

Anyhow, it caused a big debate, and amongst ourselves we have agreed that the proper thing to do is tag the waymark as grandfathered, and not decline it. The thing is, there are some category officers that don't read the forums, or don't know the history behind our "handshake" agreements. It would be nice if there was a formal solution through the GUI. Perhaps, a pop up when declining something over a month approved, or already approved that said "Previously approved waymarks should be grandfathered, and not declined". With the ability to override? Thats my thought

[+fi67]

I disagree. There are waymarks that SHOULD be declined, no matter how old.

 

There are so many different possible cases, they cannot be covered with one single rule. Of course, when the rules change, grandfathering is the only sensible way. Also when a waymark just has minor issues, like missing variables, no close-up photo of a sign or the such. If these things are so important for a group leader, he/she should have briefed the officers well enough. It's not fair that others have to suffer from their failures. When some points in the instructions are so unclear and subjective that not even all officers see it the same way, then this should not the poster's business. These things should be clarified in an update of the category description with a grandfather clause.

 

But there are other mistakes. There is no reason to let a duplicate approved just because nobody has noticed it for a long time. And I have seen quite a number of waymarks that were completely inappropriate. Locations that were not even similar to what the category describes. For these types of mistakes there can be no grandfather clause. They have to go.

 

Many of the ones I've seen, were not English. A waymarker did not understand the category description at all, and the officer did not even care to find out what was posted. It's fine to accept waymarks in different languages, if the category does not demand some English as well. But it is never a good idea to approve something you don't understand. It is not good for the category, and it does not make the poster, nor the approver, look smart.

[+Max and 99]

I know it doesn't happen often (hardly ever, I would hope), but there are times when a waymarker will completely change a waymark after it's been approved. The changed waymark does NOT meet the category criteria, and in that case I think the waymark should be declined. But these are, hopefully, rare cases.