Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BK-Hunters

Okay, now what do we talk about?

59 posts in this topic

 

Do we want to go in that direction, where a new very overbroad and general category can wreak havoc on the system we have now, and that waymarkers know and function well in?

 

 

Let peer review take care of it. :anibad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

So - even if you take a narrow blinders-on 'only categories that are subsets of other categories can be redundant' approach, that results in creation of a general category that makes dozens of EXISTING categories redundant under that narrow blinders-on definition.

 

Now what happens to all those now-redundant categories? Do the category owners have to modify them to EXCLUDE Space Art?

 

And what happens to all those already-approved waymarks? Will they be declined, with the message to submit to Space Art?

 

As a Waymarking community, do we want to go in that direction, where a new very overbroad and general category can wreak havoc on the system we have now, and that waymarkers know and function well in?

 

 

Because many of the voters are aware of the issue that you describe, the current category-proposal vote should answer your last question.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Great minds think alike?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Great minds think alike?

 

Waymarkers. Enough said. :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow after being the hospital for a couple weeks I have a lot to get caught up on. But at least I was able to get my vote in on this category. Hopefully I will be able to catch up on a few more things in coming days if I can stay awake long enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post

For me, the redundant criterion is clearly the one described in the lighthouse example.

 

The possibility to cross-post any potential location to an existing category, but not always the same, is not redundancy, but can (an often will) have a significant influence on how I estimate the interesting/informative criterion. If a new category brings a new aspect to the game, something that is not covered in the rest of the categories, then it can still become a great category. If it's just an additional icon, then we don't need it. An example for that is the Philatelic Photographs category. There will be hardly any subject on a stamp that is not covered by another category, very different ones like castles, churches, waterfalls, monuments, capitol buildings, fountains, bridges and so on. But the focus of this category cannot be covered by any of the other ones. It would be plain silly to have an "is there a stamp?" variable in these categories.

 

On the other hand, over-broad categories that make existing categories to subsets, should usually not be accepted. Often such a proposal would not meet the other criteria as well, but if it does, then this problem need to be addressed and handled appropriately. Maybe with special posting requirements or category exclusions.

 

Now, the category currently in Peer Review is different, I think. This category was probably not meant as broad as it appears. The creators just failed to clearly define what they are looking for. It is not the idea that is bad, it is the wording.

0

Share this post


Link to post

For me, the redundant criterion is clearly the one described in the lighthouse example.

 

The possibility to cross-post any potential location to an existing category, but not always the same, is not redundancy, but can (an often will) have a significant influence on how I estimate the interesting/informative criterion. If a new category brings a new aspect to the game, something that is not covered in the rest of the categories, then it can still become a great category. If it's just an additional icon, then we don't need it. An example for that is the Philatelic Photographs category. There will be hardly any subject on a stamp that is not covered by another category, very different ones like castles, churches, waterfalls, monuments, capitol buildings, fountains, bridges and so on. But the focus of this category cannot be covered by any of the other ones. It would be plain silly to have an "is there a stamp?" variable in these categories.

 

On the other hand, over-broad categories that make existing categories to subsets, should usually not be accepted. Often such a proposal would not meet the other criteria as well, but if it does, then this problem need to be addressed and handled appropriately. Maybe with special posting requirements or category exclusions.

 

Now, the category currently in Peer Review is different, I think. This category was probably not meant as broad as it appears. The creators just failed to clearly define what they are looking for. It is not the idea that is bad, it is the wording.

 

Let me just say two things here:

 

1. Welcome back to the fray, Bruce. We're glad to hear you're still with us and still kicking!!!

 

2. fi67 - you should do a copy and paste of this to the thread in which it was originally proposed. It might get more viewers there.

 

Keith

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow after being the hospital for a couple weeks I have a lot to get caught up on. But at least I was able to get my vote in on this category. Hopefully I will be able to catch up on a few more things in coming days if I can stay awake long enough.

I was just happy to be able to visit some world-famous BruceS waymarks over the last month! I was hoping to do a better job of filling your email box, though, but it's so BLEEPING hot right now! Keep on the mend and know we all have you in our thoughts and prayers!

1

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/16/2016 at 2:13 AM, BK-Hunters said:

Here is an interesting dilemma:

 

As an officer, do you approve your own waymarks?

 

As an officer, if one of your waymarks is put to a vote, do you vote; if so yea or abstain.

 

Also, do you visit your own waymarks?

1) not an officer, N/A

3) Only if it is a completely separate visit. For example, I have waymarked items for "Military Installations". The info in the long description have information about that installation. My "visit" followed after the waymark was approved, and it had info about my visit (dates I served there, organization I was in, equipment I worked on, etc) that would not be applicable in the original waymark. Another one - I visit my mother in Florida most years. She likes me to take her to visit a large nature preserve with a boardwalk thru the swamp. First time we went, I waymarked it. The next year I did a visit. Now, am I going to visit every time I go get a drink at the local Sonic drive-in? Or every time I go shooting at the gun range I waymarked? No.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1