Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Michaelfiles

Belgium Historical Markers

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, fi67 said:

As far as I know (I never tried it myself) the email to all group members function does not work, never has.

I also think this restrictions were not a good idea. It does not serve any purpose than making things more complicated than necessary. Cross-postings have never been an objection by the community.

Maybe we should be more nitpick on details and fine print in future peer reviews. It is not enough that the big picture looks great, it's the details that the create problems and frustrations.

So when I get these emails:

Hello from Waymarking.com!

A member from the The Waymarking Core group has sent your group a message.

NW_history_buff says:

We officers have just sent the Former Brothels category to Peer Review. We've tweaked the category details over the past few months to hopefully make it a worthy category addition to the Waymarking community. Although we admit the subject matter of the category may be 'less than virtuous' in its mission, we also appreciate the historical aspects of the 'oldest profession in the world' and feel it satisfies the main criteria for inclusion: Global/Prevalent/Interesting and Informative/Not redundant.... We hope you will all agree and we hope you vote 'yea'.... Thank you!

Happy Waymarking!
The Groundspeak Team

 

Does that mean that NW_history_buff sent an individual email to every person in the group? Just curious.

 

Share this post


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

So when I get these emails:

Hello from Waymarking.com!

A member from the The Waymarking Core group has sent your group a message.

NW_history_buff says:

We officers have just sent the Former Brothels category to Peer Review. We've tweaked the category details over the past few months to hopefully make it a worthy category addition to the Waymarking community. Although we admit the subject matter of the category may be 'less than virtuous' in its mission, we also appreciate the historical aspects of the 'oldest profession in the world' and feel it satisfies the main criteria for inclusion: Global/Prevalent/Interesting and Informative/Not redundant.... We hope you will all agree and we hope you vote 'yea'.... Thank you!

Happy Waymarking!
The Groundspeak Team

 

Does that mean that NW_history_buff sent an individual email to every person in the group? Just curious.

 

All members of the Waymarking Core group are officers, there are no regular members.

And as far as I know the reason for this was the email problem. Emails to the officers do work, it is just the emails to all members that fail.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

From what I saw of the investigation: 9 officers and members participated, and the vote was 7-2 to REMOVE RESTRICTIONS. Was this the final total?

Still a little patience the vote ends at 18h00 Central European Time (CET) :ph34r:
I just sent the Mail back to the active members to remind them of the deadline:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

It's done, the votes are over, and unfortunately I have to bow:(
75% vote to remove the restrictions, so I will delete them
Now, give me time to warn those who posted WMs and because of restrictions have been refused that they can resubmit them
Only then I delete the restriction

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Michaelfiles said:

It's done, the votes are over, and unfortunately I have to bow:(
75% vote to remove the restrictions, so I will delete them
Now, give me time to warn those who posted WMs and because of restrictions have been refused that they can resubmit them
Only then I delete the restriction

 

You can reevaluate the waymark, they do not need to resubmit it, except if they deleted it

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Alfouine said:

You can reevaluate the waymark, they do not need to resubmit it, except if they deleted it

Here is, I have Rereview all the WM from Brussel

Send Mail to elyob and the restrictions are removed

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

It's done, the votes are over, and unfortunately I have to bow:(
75% vote to remove the restrictions, so I will delete them
[...]

Very good! Did you really think, the restrictions would have a chance in the poll? All Yea votes were from members that are not very active in the community or totally inexperienced.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Oh man... did I miss something? This Belgium Markers has been a great source of inspiration for Popcorns.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, fi67 said:

Very good! Did you really think, the restrictions would have a chance in the poll? All Yea votes were from members that are not very active in the community or totally inexperienced.

I do not know, but Yves and I we may have a vision of the game a little different than some
We are not one of those who absolutely want to create WMs in the maximun category, but if that's what the majority wants then I bow

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Michaelfiles said:

I do not know, but Yves and I we may have a vision of the game a little different than some
We are not one of those who absolutely want to create WMs in the maximun category, but if that's what the majority wants then I bow

Once again, you did not understand and fight against an idea that does not exist.

It is not about the numbers. Nobody thinks about that. Too many waymarks for the same location is a bit of a mess, that is true, but no real problem. At least your proposed solution creates a bigger problem than the one you want to solve.

An ideal category would be totally defined by the title. Easy to understand for officers and all other users. Restrictions in the fine print make it more difficult, nobody can keep all special rules for over 1100 categories in mind, it leads to more denials, false approvals and a messy and unclear general situation.

Worse than that, your specific restriction ideas weaken your category. A category for national historic monuments that contains sites of regional and national significance, but excludes the most important ones, the ones that are seen as important for the whole world. Really? When I visit Belgium as a tourist interested in history, I expect to find these sites in the category, not just the "smaller" ones.

Restrictions are only appropriate in one special situation: when a new category would cover an established older category completely. We have some of those, some explicitly created as catch-all categories around a group of related categories like the Religious Buildings Multifarious.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

Congratulations on publishing 100 waymarks in less than two months.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, elyob said:

Congratulations on publishing 100 waymarks in less than two months.

And it's not over, lol

  • Upvote 1

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 2

×