Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RakeInTheCache

Looking for officers for a new Romanesque Architecture category

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I too have been the recipient of peer review bullying. This is why I now only vote anonymously. It's a shame I have to do that.

I personally do not see why Waymarking approval has been set up as an open ballot.  Voters should be able to vote based on their own judgement, not on how others have voted. Opinions about a category should be shared in the forum prior to the vote, not during the vote. It's incomprehensible to me why it is set up that way.  It can only cause consternation to those who have been discussing the category in the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, iconions said:

 instead of telling me that I had NO right to review the category in the negative or make comments in the forum.  



 

I think now you're putting words in peoples mouths. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RakeInTheCache said:

I think now you're putting words in peoples mouths. 

Oh goody, you go back in and edit your posts and THEN accuse me of putting words in other people's mouths - that's pretty rich.  You send out an email blast to those people who disagreed with you that they should be ashamed of themselves for voting no because they were officers in State Historical Marker categories?  No, that was EXACTLY what you did, and no amount of editing of previous forum posts is going to change that.  I guess next we're going to have 18 and 1/2 minutes of blank missing tape since you are back editing the record.


Seriously, just admit you screwed up, you were pissed, say your sorry and move on.  You got caught and got called out on it.  This isn't the University of California at Berkeley where those kinds of bully tactics are acceptable.  Don't try to bully people by making them accept your position; it's very unbecoming; and truly, it isn't what the concept of Peer Review was based on.  You obviously had no other argument than an ad hominem attack against those of us who disagreed with your proposed category.   Again, just to reiterate your position - because I voted no, and one of the two reasons I used was global, and because I am an officer in an already approved category for Iowa Historical Markers that I had nothing to do with creating, that my position about the globality of your category is a double standard.  However, you voted in the positive on this proposed category, you are an officer in the French Historical Markers, so you are engaging in the same double standard on globality, just in the positive.  That's okay, though, correct?  Pot meet kettle, anyone, on a double standard?  If it is good for the goose, it is dadgum well sure good for the gander!  Read below something about your "double standard". 

 

Quote

 

Comparing historical markers (and post offices) to the new categories is incorrect. Historical markers DO have a global presence. But, to make a category for historical markers in general would be bad. Those reviewers would be working 24/7 and still be backlogged! So they were separated by geographical locations. But as can be seen in the categories, there are MANY for historical markers in different places.

 

Now, to contrast in the suggested Romanesque architecture, there wouldn't be enough waymarks in many parts of the world to make a viable category. So the question is - is there enough even GLOBALLY to be a viable category.

 

 

BTW, the reason for public comments is for the officers in the proposed category to take those comments and tweak that category.  Not everyone participates in these forums, and given what you, probably won't.  It is hoped that the officers of the proposed category know that the comments are not personal, but are the thoughts of those waymarkers giving the comments.  Peer Review is SUPPOSED to be tough.  It's supposed to find weakness in your category.  IT'S NOT PERSONAL until you sent out an email saying "Shame on you!"  NO!!!  You made it personal when several of us got that email blast.  Remember, "why do you notice the speck in your brother's eye, but don't notice the beam of wood in your own eye?"

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, iconions said:

I would agree if this was an outstanding category, however, this is a fill-in category where the waymarker is filling in a gap in the architecture hierarchy.  The problem is that, like I stated , everyone is focusing in on my Global argument, but nothing has been said about prevalence.  We still do not know how many of these buildings there are.  Also, the building only has to show Romanesque features - it doesn't truly have to be Romanesque.  A building could have been built in the 15th or 16th century, but as long as it has the archwork they are looking for it'll be accepted.  This also tells me that reconstructs would be welcome, which would not be true Romanesque buildings.  Again, lots of problems with this category - I told the waymarker it probably would be tough to get it through.  The waymarker decided it's easier to attack me and my character than to address the issues.  

 

Well, please don't get me wrong, but I don't think that it is up to you (or anybody else) alone to decide what is "outstanding" for the entire planet. We are all people from different countries of different ages with different interests and so on. What you would call an outstanding category might bore me to death and vice versa. Don't get me wrong: I don't think that your opinion is wrong, I'm just trying to explain, that my opinion isn't completely wrong either.

 

Now for the prevelance: The category "Ancient Traces and Roads" needed more than 10 years to collect 261 waymarks worldwide(!). If we had to decide TODAY, if this category should pass peer review, would you vote against it? I know that I wouldn't. Simply because there are people out there who would be enthusiastic to see them and this category would help them to get all the information needed to find them. Next example: "Glaciers", 12 years, 77 waymarks. Next: "Martello Towers", 10 years, 55 waymarks. And the list could be continued for a while. If all these categories would have failed in peer review, how boring would this hobby be?

 

To get some facts I checked Wikipedia and found a list of all Romanesque buildings in Austria, which is a quite small country. I was very surprised to see that the list contains 136 buildings, 4 of which are in my hometown Wien. I know that we have one or two ancient roads, some glaciers and - as far as I know - not one Martello tower. But still all these categories would get a positive vote from me. Furthermore, if I could do what I wanted I would kick out the thousands of McDonalds Restaurant waymarks to make room for a few hundred Romanesque buildings, but that's a different story.

 

The point (in my humble opinion) is: The prevelance criterion doesn't include a specific number, because it would be impossible to define one. Some things don't exist in large quantities, because only a few of them survived for hundreds or thousands of years or simply because there aren't endless volcanos on this planet. So, if we talk about buildings that are hundreds of years old, we have to accept that there are less than from younger periods.

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


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

 

Well, please don't get me wrong, but I don't think that it is up to you (or anybody else) alone to decide what is "outstanding" for the entire planet. We are all people from different countries of different ages with different interests and so on. What you would call an outstanding category might bore me to death and vice versa. Don't get me wrong: I don't think that your opinion is wrong, I'm just trying to explain, that my opinion isn't completely wrong either.

 

Now for the prevelance: The category "Ancient Traces and Roads" needed more than 10 years to collect 261 waymarks worldwide(!). If we had to decide TODAY, if this category should pass peer review, would you vote against it? I know that I wouldn't. Simply because there are people out there who would be enthusiastic to see them and this category would help them to get all the information needed to find them. Next example: "Glaciers", 12 years, 77 waymarks. Next: "Martello Towers", 10 years, 55 waymarks. And the list could be continued for a while. If all these categories would have failed in peer review, how boring would this hobby be?

 

To get some facts I checked Wikipedia and found a list of all Romanesque buildings in Austria, which is a quite small country. I was very surprised to see that the list contains 136 buildings, 4 of which are in my hometown Wien. I know that we have one or two ancient roads, some glaciers and - as far as I know - not one Martello tower. But still all these categories would get a positive vote from me. Furthermore, if I could do what I wanted I would kick out the thousands of McDonalds Restaurant waymarks to make room for a few hundred Romanesque buildings, but that's a different story.

 

The point (in my humble opinion) is: The prevelance criterion doesn't include a specific number, because it would be impossible to define one. Some things don't exist in large quantities, because only a few of them survived for hundreds or thousands of years or simply because there aren't endless volcanos on this planet. So, if we talk about buildings that are hundreds of years old, we have to accept that there are less than from younger periods.

Sorry, but what is 'outstanding' for you isn't 'outstanding' to me or someone else.  That is what peer review is for.   Much like what is prevalent.  Personal opinion.  I was given sage advise many years ago - just because something CAN be waymarked doesn't mean it SHOULD be waymarked. 
Would I vote against the ancient traces category knowing what I know now, probably, as the category isn't that prevalent.  I just checked the first 5 pages and 100 of the 125 waymarks in the category are for the El Camino Real in Texas and Missouri and most of those are Daughters of the American Revolution markers that have no additional information.  

 

Your Glaciers category example appears to had to have emergency officers to manage it (anytime lumbricus is an officer in your category, you haven't been approving waymarks in a timely manner.  If you aren't approving the waymarks in your category, why have the category????)- your Martello Towers example has one officer who logged on last week, one who logged on in 2014, one in 2009, and the last in 2008.  Not exactly the epitome of what the hobby is looking for in active categories and officers.  Again, these smaller categories are probably in the same shape.

I always warn people about quoting Wikipedia when trying to make a point in an argument.  Wikipedia can be edited and changed by ANYBODY and those ANYBODYS may or may not know what they are talking about.  Now, I will give you credit, you did more research and advised the group with more facts on the prevalence than the category leader. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, iconions said:

anytime lumbricus is an officer in your category, you haven't been approving waymarks in a timely manner. 

Who told you that ridiculous nonsense?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, iconions said:

Sorry, but what is 'outstanding' for you isn't 'outstanding' to me or someone else.

 

That is - in other words - exactly what I said.

 

The rest of your posting talks a lot about numbers. Numbers of waymarks in a category, numbers of officers. But you never talk about the subject of a category. Whether it is an interesting subject or not. To make it short: It seems that you prefer to have prevelant and global waymarks and I prefer to have interesting waymarks and don't care that much about the numbers. Fortunately we both are allowed to have our own opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

As the OP I would like to now close this discussion.

 

I closed the discussion as requested by the original poster.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×