"truly outstanding categories". A discussion

[+T0SHEA]

This is subjective with regards to a category being "Global". Your comments.

 

"Global - The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category. We can afford to be somewhat flexible with the application of this guideline for truly outstanding categories."

[+fi67]

I just gave my comment in the Romanesque thread.

 

[+T0SHEA]

Okay, looks like this puts an end to any meaningful discussion.

1 hour ago, fi67 said:

I just gave my comment in the Romanesque thread.

 

[+elyob]

Worldwide appeal does not equal worldwide locations.  As a reviewer, I contribute plenty to a category which usually includes faraway waymarks even if I don't actually ever post or visit a waymark in that category.

[vulture1957]

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.

[+iconions]

25 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

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.

Careful, you are risking getting a hateful email for thinking badly about that new proposed category like that!

 

[vulture1957]

1 hour ago, iconions said:

Careful, you are risking getting a hateful email for thinking badly about that new proposed category like that!

 

Not saying bad stuff, just posing the question of "are there enough instances". I don't know. and, as a standard member, I can't be an officer or vote. Just trying to explain why there are all those historical marker categories.

[+PISA-caching]

11 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

This is subjective with regards to a category being "Global". Your comments.

 

"Global - The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category. We can afford to be somewhat flexible with the application of this guideline for truly outstanding categories."

 

I'm not sure what the question is, but my opinion is that words like global, interesting, informative, outstanding, prevelant and so on will never get us to a point where each and every waymarker on this planet says "YES! That's it!". We would have to discuss each and every word separately and still wouldn't agree on one of them.

 

For me, the Chronograms category is outstanding, because people spent a lot of time to find words that fit on the building/statue/monument and at the same time include exactly the correct letters to get the year of construction in Roman numerals. For me, this is amazing. But others might think that it was just a game for people who lived in a time with no computer games and therefore not interesting at all. In peer review I noticed some negative votes that had comments like "Impossible to find here", similar to what fi67 mentioned in his post in the other thread.

 

On the other hand, if we COULD find an exact definition of all these words, we wouldn't need peer review anymore, right? So, the question is: Do we trust in peer review or not? I myself couldn't answer that question with yes or no. If I had to, the answer would be no. Sometimes, I can't understand why one category does or doesn't pass peer review. And if the result isn't 100% the way I expect it to be, I can't entirely trust it. So, from my point of view it would be great, if we had something that would give better results than the peer review, but I have no idea what that could be and therefore we have to live with the results of the current system.

[+Tuena]

I can't think of any truly outstanding categories & I doubt that there would be any agreement as to what would constitutes same.  I disregard this sentence when looking at the global criterion. I take the literal meaning of global so disagreed with past discussions which saw a much restricted view.  I disagreed entirely with an interpretation of global in the just finalised peer review.  

[+iconions]

19 minutes ago, Tuena said:

I can't think of any truly outstanding categories & I doubt that there would be any agreement as to what would constitutes same.  I disregard this sentence when looking at the global criterion. I take the literal meaning of global so disagreed with past discussions which saw a much restricted view.  I disagreed entirely with an interpretation of global in the just finalised peer review.  

Exactly - your opinion.  ...and you know what?  You are entitled to said opinion - no ands, ifs or buts.  I am entitled to try to change your opinion with my own opinion which you can either accept or reject my reasoning.  I'm not entitled to shame you in public for holding that opinion!  

[+fi67]

8 hours ago, vulture1957 said:

Comparing historical markers (and post offices) to the new categories is incorrect.

That's what I said. NEVER compare to them.

[+fi67]

The basic dilemma is, that the whole structure of Waymarking is a paradox. The first sentence of the Waymarking.com FAQ: "Waymarking is a way to mark unique locations on the planet and give them a voice."

 

Now, "unique" and "category" is a pair of terms that does not go well together. There will never be a final and objective solution. Groundspeak has introduced the four criteria as guidelines for peer review, but all of them are sort of fuzzy and subjective, especially the global one with its "outstanding" amendment. Under these circumstances, all our votes can only be subjective, but the criteria are still here to keep the whole picture in mind. Do not think only about yourself, think about what is the best for the whole community, wherever they are and whatever they are interested in.

 

I have seen cases, not too few, where a vote was justified by "facts" that just were completely wrong. But apart from that, a vote is valid, no matter if it is based on different interpretations of the criteria than mine. We can and should try to convince others of our ideas. But no one of us has the authority to invalidate other opinions when that fails.

 

I have expressed my opinion about the global category. "Outstanding" is difficult. For me, this would be something interesting, quite rare, not to be found in yellow pages or tourist guides. Places that need some work to identify and visit, and need  some work to document and create a waymark. Not easy, but neither impossible. Waymarks that do not simply duplicate well known data, but create some new knowledge not available before.

 

Prevalent: For me, rarer is better. I usually are more concerned about over-prevalence. A couple of hundred potential locations will do, let's say one thousand worldwide for normal categories, but I am willing to lower that limit for something really interesting and captivating.

 

Redundant: When a new category is already covered by one single larger category, it is redundant. Period. When most of the locations can already be posted to different categories then it's not redundant, no matter how large the overlap is. But then, especially when the overlap is close to 100%, it is important that the new category adds some new aspect to the whole thing, something interesting and not found in the existing categories. If it does not add anything, then we don't need the category. Not because it's redundant, because it's not interesting.

 

Interesting or informative: there is little to discuss about this criterion. It is the most subjective one, but for me also one of the most important. When I really like it, I probably support it. Simple. There are also categories I am not interested in, but I see that there is a demand. I think I'll never get what can be exciting about benchmarks, trigpoints and the like, but I see that some people here enjoy them. So I am fine with it. On the other hand, I have never experienced anyone really enjoying commercial categories. I mean real interest in real places, not just in the statistic numbers they produce when mass-contributing. No YEA from me.

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by fi67
Typo

[+RakeInTheCache]

On ‎7‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 9:21 PM, vulture1957 said:

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.

Don't think that holds logically.  I can say Architectural categories DO have a global presence. But to make a category for Architecture in general would be bad….

 

Now, to contrast with say Michigan Historical Markers, there aren't enough waymarks anywhere outside of Michigan to make a viable category….. 

[+RakeInTheCache]

19 hours ago, Tuena said:

I can't think of any truly outstanding categories & I doubt that there would be any agreement as to what would constitutes same.  I disregard this sentence when looking at the global criterion. I take the literal meaning of global so disagreed with past discussions which saw a much restricted view.  I disagreed entirely with an interpretation of global in the just finalised peer review.  

What is difficult to understand in this is that you do seem to very much enjoy categories which are not global based on your waymark tally.  

[vulture1957]

2 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

Don't think that holds logically.  I can say Architectural categories DO have a global presence. But to make a category for Architecture in general would be bad….

 

Now, to contrast with say Michigan Historical Markers, there aren't enough waymarks anywhere outside of Michigan to make a viable category….. 

 

you misinterpreted everything I said.

[+iconions]

19 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

Don't think that holds logically.  I can say Architectural categories DO have a global presence. But to make a category for Architecture in general would be bad….

 

Now, to contrast with say Michigan Historical Markers, there aren't enough waymarks anywhere outside of Michigan to make a viable category….. 

Please, with all due respect, go away.  All you are doing is burning bridges with some outstanding waymarkers.  We understand you don't agree with why we voted they way we did.  We understand you will never agree with the way we voted.  I will NOT have the courtesy, like I did previously, to make my feelings known prior to you, or try to help you, if you place another proposed category into the forum.  It could be the greatest category in the world, I don't give a flip.  You will only treat me like that publicly exactly once, and you used that chance up.

 

 

[+DougK]

On 7/15/2018 at 1:29 AM, fi67 said:

Prevalent: For me, rarer is better. I usually are more concerned about over-prevalence. A couple of hundred potential locations will do, let's say one thousand worldwide for normal categories, but I am willing to lower that limit for something really interesting and captivating.

 

Rare things are definitely interesting, but if they're too rare I'm not in favor of it being a Waymarking category. Imagine a category for faces carved from rock that are at least 50 feet tall. After you waymark Mt Rushmore and maybe Stone mountain, how many are left? For the under-prevalence reason, this category should never get approved, even though they're rare and interesting.

 

Over-prevalence is definitely the opposite problem, as objects/places become too mundane. An example might be Walk-Don't Walk pedestrian signaling devices. Even if you tried to narrow the definition to those with additional audible signals, I don't think a category like that  should ever be approved.

 

For those enjoying the Waymarking hobby by collecting an icon for posting (not visiting) to a category, rare objects make this difficult. I'm not a visitor, I'm a poster of new waymarks. When I see a new category proposed, I'm hoping for 300+ possibilities around the world, enough for everyone with this goal to find. I don't know how many other people are Waymarking like me, (icons for posting), but there need to be enough possibilities for all of us to get. For me, it's more interesting to add a new waymark to a category than visit an existing one. Posting new waymarks is where it's at for me. 

Edited July 18, 2018 by DougK
correct usage of word "too"

[+QuarrellaDeVil]

4 hours ago, DougK said:

Rare things are definitely interesting, but if they're too rare I'm not in favor of it being a Waymarking category. Imagine a category for faces carved from rock that are at least 50 feet tall. 

 

One of my fellow comrades-in-Waymarking once mentioned creating a category for headstones of the Odd Fellows.  He'd seen something unusual in his neck of the woods, and expected that what he'd seen was pretty uncommon, wondering aloud if there would be interest in a category.   Where I live, I could walk a large cemetery and find dozens of headstones with the three links of the Odd Fellows -- three chain links with F-L-T superimposed upon them -- but I admit that what he'd seen -- a headstone with a tent and a reference to the organization -- is something I don't see much (although I do have one within seven miles of where I live).  I'd love to create "Fraternal Organizations Multifarious", for some of the lesser-known fraternal organizations that were active a hundred years ago and earlier, but for the life of me, I have no idea where I would draw the line.  Plus, every time I think I've seen 'em all (ha), I encounter something else on a cemetery walk where Google turns up nothing on a search of their initials or emblem.  In one case, I got in touch with the main organization, mentioning that I'd seen one of their members headstones some five hours away from where their HQ is, and they really enjoyed seeing the photos.

 

I'm with you...I'd rather share these for someone's enjoyment instead of just visiting them.

[+Tuena]

On 16/07/2018 at 7:01 AM, RakeInTheCache said:

What is difficult to understand in this is that you do seem to very much enjoy categories which are not global based on your waymark tally.  

I could only find one example that was not global - Australian Trig Points but you wouldn't expect to find these in other countries. Benchmarks, Post Offices, Heritage Sites & Historical Markers are all to be found world wide.