Count up / Count down

[+PISA-caching 155]

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.

[+pmaupin 38]

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

[+Alfouine 83]

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."

[+T0SHEA 176]

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 August 22, 2019 by BK-Hunters

[+Max and 99 1680]

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.

[+T0SHEA 176]

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 August 23, 2019 by BK-Hunters

[+T0SHEA 176]

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

[+elyob 141]

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?

[+PISA-caching 155]

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.  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 August 23, 2019 by PISA-caching

[+PISA-caching 155]

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 August 23, 2019 by PISA-caching

[+elyob 141]

"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?

[+PISA-caching 155]

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

[+T0SHEA 176]

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

[+T0SHEA 176]

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

[+saopaulo1 4]

What about something like this? If seen one in local libraries.

[+T0SHEA 176]

•  

[+elyob 141]

18 hours ago, saopaulo1 said:

What about something like this? If seen one in local libraries.

 

This is a great question.  They are not commercial.  In my part of the world, they are so common that they are no longer interesting.  They are so common that there may be proximity issues.  What do the rest of you think?

[+Max and 99 1680]

Where I live, I've only seen these on college campuses.

[+PISA-caching 155]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 9:21 PM, BK-Hunters said:

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

Keith

 

Ok, I'm not familiar with this kind of counter. I thought that they are set up at the entrance of a factory and set back to 0, if any accident has occurred. I don't know what "the job" exactly is. Are they used for example when building a bridge or a house and removed when the house is finished? In that case I would exclude them.

[+PISA-caching 155]

9 hours ago, elyob said:

 

This is a great question.  They are not commercial.  In my part of the world, they are so common that they are no longer interesting.  They are so common that there may be proximity issues.  What do the rest of you think?

 

I've never seen one of these in my part of the world. Therefore I would accept them and hope that no waymarker will post tons of the same kind of counter.

 

I think the problem is similar to the advertising columns. I could post tons of advertising columns in my home town, because they seem to be everywhere. Instead I picked one that looks better than others and is in the center of the city and will only post additional ones, if they are (in whatever way) different to the first column.

[+T0SHEA 176]

9 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Are they used for example when building a bridge or a house and removed when the house is finished? In that case I would exclude them.

Bingo!

Keith

[+PISA-caching 155]

Call for Officer Vote has been started.

[+elyob 141]

Voted.

[+pmaupin 38]

Voted

 

[+T0SHEA 176]

Voted

[+PISA-caching 155]

Peer Review has started. Can't wait to read the comments.

 

[+elyob 141]

Everybody, go vote.

[+T0SHEA 176]

Andreas - it never hurts to start a new thread to announce a category's going to peer review. That puts it right in people's faces, making it harder to use the excuse that they "Had No Idea" it was in peer review.

Keith

[+PISA-caching 155]

Regarding the (so far) only negative comment in the peer review:

 

I don't like the "countdown's end has to be 5 or more years in the future". Most countdown clocks are reset each year for a specific event. All the ones I've visited are like this.

 

I'm willing to change that part of the category description to also include countdowns that start over again every year, but as usual this should be discussed in the forum. I don't know any such countdown and would like to avoid waymarks, where a countdown is actived every year (let's say) 30 days before an upcomming event takes place. Such countdown waymarks would lead waymarkers to displays that are inactive most of the time. So, a change of that part of the category description will only occur, if we find a definition that includes the mentioned countdowns, but doesn't automatically include countdowns that nobody wants (e.g. countdowns at traffic lights, countdowns that are inactive most of the time etc.).

[+elyob 141]

Until I can consider an example of a permanent, continuous, restarting countdown; I vote for the category description to remain as it is.

[+bluesnote 21]

On 9/2/2019 at 5:18 AM, PISA-caching said:

Regarding the (so far) only negative comment in the peer review:

 

I don't like the "countdown's end has to be 5 or more years in the future". Most countdown clocks are reset each year for a specific event. All the ones I've visited are like this.

 

I'm willing to change that part of the category description to also include countdowns that start over again every year, but as usual this should be discussed in the forum. I don't know any such countdown and would like to avoid waymarks, where a countdown is actived every year (let's say) 30 days before an upcomming event takes place. Such countdown waymarks would lead waymarkers to displays that are inactive most of the time. So, a change of that part of the category description will only occur, if we find a definition that includes the mentioned countdowns, but doesn't automatically include countdowns that nobody wants (e.g. countdowns at traffic lights, countdowns that are inactive most of the time etc.).

 

That's my comment. I only say this because there are interesting countdown clocks out there that reset each year, and I feel like they should be included in the category. I would suggest that you should add "if the clock continuously countdowns to an event for 1 full year and is reset after each event occurs, then they can be included in the category". This would exclude countdown clocks such as those used for the Olympics (which I've seen in many cities) which once the event starts are deactivated. However, they could be included here as well for their historical value, but I'll leave that up the community (and officers) to decide. If this issue can be updated to include annual countdown clocks after the category goes live, I'll change my vote.

[+bluesnote 21]

On 8/25/2019 at 8:01 PM, elyob said:

 

This is a great question.  They are not commercial.  In my part of the world, they are so common that they are no longer interesting.  They are so common that there may be proximity issues.  What do the rest of you think?

I enjoy seeing them, but like others have said I've really only seen them on college campuses. I have seen them in other places such as airports and libraries. The college that I currently attend have these everywhere. I go to a large public university, so I would assume there are hundred to a few thousand of them scattered throughout campus. One building could have 30 or more. While I do find these interesting (and if waymarked, would be fun to see the progression of the counter over the years), I believe it would be better to have this as a separate category, if any, in the future. This is something that can be worked out later.

[+PISA-caching 155]

7 hours ago, bluesnote said:

That's my comment....

 

It would be great, if you could give an example for such a countdown. Like I said before, I'm ready to change that rule when the category came to life. My suggestion for the new rule would be:

 

The countdown's end has to be 5 or more years in the future or it has to be a long-term countdown that is continiously running and reset no more than once a year.

 

But IF we change that rule this way, we probably should ask for a reference that the countdown is indeed long-term and not just running once.

 

Peer Review is over. So, let's see, if Groundspeak accepts the new category too. In the meantime, I'm asking everybody to let us know what you think of the little change in the rule.

Edited September 4, 2019 by PISA-caching

[+bluesnote 21]

20 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

It would be great, if you could give an example for such a countdown. Like I said before, I'm ready to change that rule when the category came to life. My suggestion for the new rule would be:

 

The countdown's end has to be 5 or more years in the future or it has to be a long-term countdown that is continiously running and reset no more than once a year.

 

But IF we change that rule this way, we probably should ask for a reference that the countdown is indeed long-term and not just running once.

 

Peer Review is over. So, let's see, if Groundspeak accepts the new category too. In the meantime, I'm asking everybody to let us know what you think of the little change in the rule.

 

I've made a submission and it seems to be in a group vote. Let's see what the officers say.

[+PISA-caching 155]

My vote was no, but not because of the countdown "problem". I will wait and see what my officers say about my suggestion for a change of the rules. Your waymark would be a great waymark, if you take care of the reasons for the denial.

[+PISA-caching 155]

The rule regarding the countdowns has been updated. 

[+Max and 99 1680]

I was so surprised to see my first trail counter today. My husband thought it was a power box. "No, no! It's a trail counter!"

 But the counter is not viewable to passersby. But I was so happy to even recognize it.