Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
PISA-caching

Count up / Count down

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

I think that's pretty close. Off the top of my head I can't materially improve on it, except grammatically:

Displays that are used primarily by workers, custodians, managers or other staff to monitor operational parameters, with only incidental provision of public information , will not be accepted.

Something like that. 

Keith

 

Not something like that, but exactly that. Perfect. I will include that in the category description.

 

3 hours ago, elyob said:

I am liking the category description so far.  Quotations must be in quotation marks...or italics? 

 

Thanks for the praise and the suggestion. Will include that also.

Share this post


Link to post

The description of the category seems to me quite correct, it is clear and precise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I just have a problem with this sentence "The main focus of the category is on displays that are able to present the development of interesting numerical data"

How to define what is interesting ? it's not really objective.

I think this paragraph could be enough "However, not all counting/measuring displays will be accepted. It will be up to the officers to decide, on a case-by-case basis."

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Alfouine said:

I just have a problem with this sentence "The main focus of the category is on displays that are able to present the development of interesting numerical data"

How to define what is interesting ? it's not really objective.

I think this paragraph could be enough "However, not all counting/measuring displays will be accepted. It will be up to the officers to decide, on a case-by-case basis."

 

The main focus of the category is on displays which present the development of interesting numerical data, rather than data with little variation over an extended period. It will be up to the officers to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the numbers are sufficiently interesting and/or sufficiently variable for acceptance. 

 

The first sentence succinctly describes the intent of the category. The second sentence continues the train of thought of the first, offering new information.

No, it's not objective, in that it's calling for a subjective evaluation. You'll have to take it up with the category leader as to whether he chooses to have the officers making subjective decisions on acceptability. At present, though, I see no way around it, short of making the category description much longer and much more descriptive AND possibly requiring officers to do calculations in order to make a Yes/NO decision.

 

No new category writer seems able to anticipate each and every eventuality. Take my word on that. My most recent category encountered troubled waters on its first day, requiring a bit of sorting out. It comes with the territory.

Keith

 

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Alfouine said:

I just have a problem with this sentence "The main focus of the category is on displays that are able to present the development of interesting numerical data"

How to define what is interesting ? it's not really objective.

I think this paragraph could be enough "However, not all counting/measuring displays will be accepted. It will be up to the officers to decide, on a case-by-case basis."

Too subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

Too subjective.

I don't disagree. As a rule, when a category has relied on subjective decisions by officers it has run into stormy seas.

Item A is accepted, then a nearly identical B is rejected, resulting in a kerfuffle, either privately, between officers and submitters, among officers or on the forum.

Going in without clear and concise guidelines requiring no interpretation by either party involved in the submission process is never a good idea.

I don't yet see a simple solution here, but that's certainly not to say that one doesn't exist. I'll work on it, though.

 

Any ideas from the field?

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

One problem encountered by many writers of new categories is that it is essentially impossible to know, or even to anticipate, the nature of every item that will be submitted. As a result, it's nearly impossible to write a comprehensive category description that will cover each and every eventuality. That's simply the nature of the beast. Category writers must either find a way to deal with it, update the category each time such a challenge rears its ugly head, or give up and move on.

 

We'll have to wait for input from Andreas on how he chooses to handle this, if at all, or even if he considers it a problem worth dealing with.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of the website variable.  Website addresses soon become stale.  Can we suggest including some of the website's content in the description?

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

One problem encountered by many writers of new categories is that it is essentially impossible to know, or even to anticipate, the nature of every item that will be submitted. As a result, it's nearly impossible to write a comprehensive category description that will cover each and every eventuality. That's simply the nature of the beast. Category writers must either find a way to deal with it, update the category each time such a challenge rears its ugly head, or give up and move on.

 

We'll have to wait for input from Andreas on how he chooses to handle this, if at all, or even if he considers it a problem worth dealing with.

Keith

 

Yes, this is another part of my description that I wasn't really happy with. But fortunately, you had a very good suggestion:

 

10 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

The main focus of the category is on displays which present the development of interesting numerical data, rather than data with little variation over an extended period. It will be up to the officers to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the numbers are sufficiently interesting and/or sufficiently variable for acceptance. 

 

The more I think about it, the more I believe that we can either remove the 2nd sentence completely or replace it with some kind of advice. How about this:

 

The main focus of the category is on displays which present the development of interesting numerical data, rather than data with little variation over an extended period. When posting a new waymark, ask yourself "Is this display interesting enough to tell the world about it?" and if the answer is yes, go ahead.

 

We will not exclude them, but drown them in many interesting, funny, stunning, surprising ... other waymarks. :grin: With the other exclusions we get rid of most of the uninteresting ones anyway. I would rather accept a "boring" display here and there than write a category description that takes a lot of time to read and understand and causes the officers unnecessary troubles when reviewing new waymarks.

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, elyob said:

I like the idea of the website variable.  Website addresses soon become stale.  Can we suggest including some of the website's content in the description?

 

The website variable is for websites that show (some or all) the numbers (of the diplay), so that everybody can see what the actual numbers are and compare them to the ones visible in the waymark and it's visits.

There is for example a website that shows the debts of Germany at https://www.steuerzahler.de/aktion-position/staatsverschuldung/dieschuldenuhrdeutschlands/. Now you can compare that with the photo in the initial posting. Germany's debts are decreasing now. Congratulations!

Of course people can always include some of the website's content (as long as they follow the rules regarding quotations), but that's not a substitute for what the variable is for. Maybe, I should work on the text regarding the variable to make the purpose of it more clear?

 

Edited to add:

I just searched for the website that Keith mentioned regarding the Libby Dam. I assume he was talking about https://www.nws.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Locks-and-Dams/Libby-Dam/ which not really shows the numbers in realtime, but at least more accurate numbers than in Keith's photo (and future waymark). So maybe I have to change the description of the variable:

 

Website: If you know of a website, that shows all or part of the numbers in realtime or at least updated on a more or less regular basis (e.g. the website of a power station that shows the actual amount of produced energy), you can improve the quality of your waymark by filling this variable.

 

How does that sound?

 

 

Edited by PISA-caching
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

"Displays, that for example show the number of days since the last accident in a company are not considered being business/sales related and therefore accepted."  Such a counter on a construction site would be excluded because it is temporary?

Share this post


Link to post

No, they wouldn't be excluded. I think the cyclists counters start every day/month/year and are also not excluded.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, elyob said:

"Displays, that for example show the number of days since the last accident in a company are not considered being business/sales related and therefore accepted."  Such a counter on a construction site would be excluded because it is temporary?

I would exclude these because when the job is complete the display will go away, IE it is temporary.

Keith

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

The main focus of the category is on displays which present the development of interesting numerical data, rather than data with little variation over an extended period. When posting a new waymark, ask yourself "Is this display interesting enough to tell the world about it?" and if the answer is yes, go ahead.

Yeah, that's a better solution.

12 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

With the other exclusions we get rid of most of the uninteresting ones anyway. I would rather accept a "boring" display here and there than write a category description that takes a lot of time to read and understand and causes the officers unnecessary troubles when reviewing new waymarks.

Yeah, I think that, too, is the way to go.

Keith

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×