Commercial Commemorations?

[+RakeInTheCache]

Hi all,

 

I started seeing a number of waymarks coming through for the category Commercial Commemorations. The name of the category suggested to me that these should be corporate sponsored items but I'm seeing a lot of non corporate related items being approved. Then I looked at the description and read "or some other entity, event, group, people or organization's milestone or celebration." It looks like people are submitting all kinds of anniversaries in this category.

 

I just think the name of this category really needs to be changed. Maybe just dropping the "Commercial" qualifier in the name would be sufficient or replacing "Commercial" with "Achievement".

 

Does anyone else agree the name could use a makeover?

 

RitC.

[+Max and 99]

Hi all,

 

I started seeing a number of waymarks coming through for the category Commercial Commemorations. The name of the category suggested to me that these should be corporate sponsored items but I'm seeing a lot of non corporate related items being approved. Then I looked at the description and read "or some other entity, event, group, people or organization's milestone or celebration." It looks like people are submitting all kinds of anniversaries in this category.

 

I just think the name of this category really needs to be changed. Maybe just dropping the "Commercial" qualifier in the name would be sufficient or replacing "Commercial" with "Achievement".

 

Does anyone else agree the name could use a makeover?

 

RitC.

 

I understand your point. I have to admit that whenever I've considered this category for something I've found, I have to go back and re-read what is accepted. The "commercial" throws me off, too. I don't think this issue was anticipated, since we discussed it in peer review and it seemed like a reasonable title to me at the time.

[+silverquill]

I've replied privately to this question, but a recap here might be useful.

 

Probably we could do with a rewrite of the description to make the category description clearer. A name change could help, too.

 

The original intent, as I understand it, was to have a category for anniversary commemorations not covered by the "Community Commemorations" category. There seems to be no good single term for that. "Non-community" doesn't really sound good. My suggestion is something simple like, "Anniversary Commemorations," with a clear exclusion for those that are "community commemorations."

[+Torgut]

This topic made me think about something I noticed (actually just yesterday's evening). I saw a category and then noticed how far from the original description and spirit some of the waymarks approved there are. All right, I didn't want to flame but now that I see this topic.... I am talking about "Disaster Memorials". Last approved WM is about a place where a bomb fall during WWII and killed a significant number of civilians. Err... doesn't the category mentions war related disasters are excluded from it?

 

Then I see a memorial for the "disaster who killed three". Ah! Three? How about one? One person dying in a car accident is considered a disaster, accordingly to the definition presented in the category description?

 

"disaster as the impact of a natural or man-made hazard that negatively affects society or environment."

 

How ordinary will be such a category - originally quite an interesting one - if officers accept an accident killing three as a disaster?

 

Further down an even more openly "disaster" of war: Bombefly B17 42-40051.

 

Sorry for the off-topic :-)

[+fi67]

Then I see a memorial for the "disaster who killed three". Ah! Three? How about one? One person dying in a car accident is considered a disaster, accordingly to the definition presented in the category description?

Just had a look at the list, and - oh, that's my waymark.

 

Well, I think you are right, three fatalities in not really a large disaster (except for the ones affected). But in this case, the short description is maybe misleading. The rockfall killed 16 railway workers in total. Three of them were killed by this very stone that has been turned into a memorial later, thus they were emphasized on the plaque.

[+Torgut]

Then I see a memorial for the "disaster who killed three". Ah! Three? How about one? One person dying in a car accident is considered a disaster, accordingly to the definition presented in the category description?

Just had a look at the list, and - oh, that's my waymark.

 

Well, I think you are right, three fatalities in not really a large disaster (except for the ones affected). But in this case, the short description is maybe misleading. The rockfall killed 16 railway workers in total. Three of them were killed by this very stone that has been turned into a memorial later, thus they were emphasized on the plaque.

 

Yeah Fi, I know it's yours, I noticed it when I spotted it in the list. Nothing personal, as you know :-) And yes, 16 victims brings more a tone of Disaster - in my personal interpretation. But never mind... the general idea remains... there are too many categories where the spirit of the rules is not being followed and apart from your fair clarification this is still one of those, but there are more.

[+Max and 99]

Even more frustrating to me are the waymark approvals for a category that specifically states they will NOT be accepted.

If a category has a specific exclusion, then stick with it!

 

I once asked an officer about this, and his response was something like "I'm an officer in the group. I can approve it if I want to."

[+silverquill]

"Category drift" can happen for a number of reasons.

 

The one that I face most often as a reviewer is the waymark that is on the fringes of what is acceptable. Do I be strict and decline the waymark, or be flexible and accept it? Each time a borderline waymark is accepted, the further out the boundary gets pushed. I don't like to decline waymarks, and I would rather be inclusive than exclusive. But, there are risks.

 

Subjective criteria for a category are a setup for inconsistencies. What one reviewer may consider unique, another may not. I'm not always consistent in my own evaluations. Once something is accepted in a category, then someone will consider it a precedent. That makes it harder to decline a waymark that is clearly inappropriate.

 

Mistakes do happen. Sometimes I may miss something that should disqualify a particular waymark. Sometimes an inexperienced officer will let something slide in. Then there are a few people who just don't bother reading the waymark and will automatically approve anything. This is bad for the hobby. We as officers need to be conscientious about understanding and applying the written criteria to each submission.

 

Correcting mistakes is possible, but dangerous. Only occasionally will I "reconsider" a waymark that either I or another officer has accepted in error. No one likes to have that happen, but sometimes for the integrity of the category it has to be done. For instance, if it is a waymark that is specifically excluded, then it really should be rejected after further review.

 

Poorly written descriptions also open up a category to inconsistencies. Some of the early categories were rather brief or not well defined. I think the Waymarking community has become more mature and demanding in how categories are written and defined.

 

Changes over time my result in a gradual shift in the character of the nature of a category. In many cases the originator of the category has dropped out. Sometimes none of the original officers are active and completely different people are making the decisions. Along with this may come an actual rewriting of the category. Even with the original officers, descriptions and requirements can be changed. If these changes exclude some things that were previously accepted, then there are apparent inconsistencies.

 

I suppose that as long as humans are reviewing waymarks, there will be some inconsistencies. If we are generous and polite, we can minimize the repercussions of these instances. Most of all, we can try to avoid them as much as possible.

 

Are we having fun yet?