Discussionmania

[+Torgut]

Anyone can tell me when discussing a category in the forum became mandatory? Because it's freighting the number of comments I see in any peer review mentioning this. It's true that a combined discussion might bring some improvements over a new category proposal. But it should be optional and not a "must do", as it is becoming. I just voted yes in a new category and I see most of the negative comments mention "it was not discussed in the forums". All right, the new category is based in a good idea but it doesn't have a good description. In that case the negative comment should be exactly that, doesn't have a good description, nothing else.

 

Last time I looked there were 4 criteria factors to ponder while voting:

 

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.

Prevalence - How many potential waymarks exist throughout the world? Too few and the category may be of little or no interest to anyone. Too many and you may end up with a category full of mundane, everyday locations.

Interesting or Informative - In general, good categories can be classified in one of two ways. Interesting: Can you imagine yourself sifting through the gallery for compelling and entertaining images, or making a special trip to visit a waymark in this category? Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently, or serve to gather enlightening information about a commercial location which may or may not be available from traditional sources.

Redundant - Could this category be included as a variable in an existing category? For instance, let's say this new category is called "Blue Lighthouses". But, wait! There may already be a "Lighthouses category". Would it make more sense to add a variable for different colors in the "Lighthouses" details?

 

I don't see: discussed in the forums here. As a matter of fact, I don't see "good description" either.

[+iconions]

6 hours ago, Torgut said:

Anyone can tell me when discussing a category in the forum became mandatory? Because it's freighting the number of comments I see in any peer review mentioning this. It's true that a combined discussion might bring some improvements over a new category proposal. But it should be optional and not a "must do", as it is becoming. I just voted yes in a new category and I see most of the negative comments mention "it was not discussed in the forums". All right, the new category is based in a good idea but it doesn't have a good description. In that case the negative comment should be exactly that, doesn't have a good description, nothing else.

 

Last time I looked there were 4 criteria factors to ponder while voting:

 

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.

Prevalence - How many potential waymarks exist throughout the world? Too few and the category may be of little or no interest to anyone. Too many and you may end up with a category full of mundane, everyday locations.

Interesting or Informative - In general, good categories can be classified in one of two ways. Interesting: Can you imagine yourself sifting through the gallery for compelling and entertaining images, or making a special trip to visit a waymark in this category? Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently, or serve to gather enlightening information about a commercial location which may or may not be available from traditional sources.

Redundant - Could this category be included as a variable in an existing category? For instance, let's say this new category is called "Blue Lighthouses". But, wait! There may already be a "Lighthouses category". Would it make more sense to add a variable for different colors in the "Lighthouses" details?

 

I don't see: discussed in the forums here. As a matter of fact, I don't see "good description" either.

If you click Categories > I'd like to Create my own category.  You are presented with the following steps:

1.) Form a Group.
2.) Create a Category where within a subsection it is Strongly Suggested:

 "Once you have the required number of Officers in your Group, a checklist will automatically appear on your Group page with a link to the category creation form. Take your time writing the category details and research your idea fully before you complete the edits. The Discussion Forum is a great place for tips on category creation."
3.) Go to Peer Review.  This is where you pulled your information above- you're a step ahead, my man.

So, if you look closely, it DOES say to take your time and research your idea FULLY before completing the edits.  This means not only a good description, but a great one.  Please tell me that this idea was fully researched, especially after the holes poked into it so far in peer review.
Also, in the Forums, you have experienced people who can assist with the write-up and can point out particular issues like the use of copywrited screengrabs or the trespassing issue to climb on building roofs to get pictures of other roofs.  Also, with my being in the United States, I only have a passing understanding of GDPR regulations, but I did read that even a Grandmother was forced to take down pictures of her grandchildren on Facebook because the parents objected to them being on there.  Also, like I wrote in my denial, a waymarker agrees each time s/he posts a new waymark to the Groundspeak Terms of Service.  Those Terms of Service are actually pretty interesting to read and shouldn't just be clicked through.  It's exactly why, with Waymarking, any pictures pulled of the internet that aren't specifically in the public domain or aren't attributed to the source, are in direct violation of the copywrite and therefore the Groundspeak Terms of Service. 

So as far as to why I can justify my comments to the 4 criteria above, I can using Interesting and informative.  Right now, as this category stands, because of the way the entire thing is so poorly written, it is not interesting or informative, unless the inside of a jail cell would be informative after getting arrested for trespassing or stalking.   
As to your comment about the Forums being mandatory, you are correct, they are not, HOWEVER, you will have a much better category if you allow a larger group of experienced people look at your proposed category and assist.  Yea, it's tough taking criticism, but that criticism of your category through the Forums will make for smoother sailing through Peer Review.  

 It's obvious that the category was rushed out the door to get it to peer review over the U.S. Memorial Day weekend in the hopes that a large number of American waymarkers would be busy with other things.  

 

[+Torgut]

It doesn't says it's mandatory as the crowd now seems to demand. It says it's a great place etc etc.

 

No need to mention how cool the forums are and how constructive and helpful comments regarding a new category can be. I know that. However that's not the point. The point is the growing idea that is kind of mandatory. It's becoming a kind of "ney because you didn't bring it to the forums". I think that's unacceptable per ser. If the new category doesn't have merits, than people should say it. Not "because it didn't come to the forums". This doesn't go to the specific category currently in peer review. Goes to the general atitude towards any category coming to the peer review. Just that. I am sorry if that was not clear enough in my original post. So in the end it seems we agree on this.

 

All this said, I notice there are fewer and fewer new categories coming up to peer review. And I guarantee there are still many subjects out there who don't have a category. Less waymarkers? As an officer I don't see less submissions to my categories though.

[+Alfouine]

A lot of peers have changed their comment about the forum.

I never saw an excellent idea or a good write up without a forum discussion, it's not mandatory, it's just the best way to be sure to have a good idea and good write up

When you read the really poor category description, forum discussion and experience are missing.

[+fi67]

I bet, the only European in that group has never heard of Memorial Day. I had to look it up and I am convinced that nobody around here knows what it is, even less when it is.

 

Back to the topic: a forum discussion is not mandatory in the strict sense. You see, it went to peer review without a discussion. It works, but it is calling for failure. When was the last category approved that did not go through the forum? 2011? 2010?

[+iconions]

28 minutes ago, Torgut said:

It doesn't says it's mandatory as the crowd now seems to demand. It says it's a great place etc etc.

 

No need to mention how cool the forums are and how constructive and helpful comments regarding a new category can be. I know that. However that's not the point. The point is the growing idea that is kind of mandatory. It's becoming a kind of "ney because you didn't bring it to the forums". I think that's unacceptable per ser. If the new category doesn't have merits, than people should say it. Not "because it didn't come to the forums". This doesn't go to the specific category currently in peer review. Goes to the general atitude towards any category coming to the peer review. Just that. I am sorry if that was not clear enough in my original post. So in the end it seems we agree on this.

 

All this said, I notice there are fewer and fewer new categories coming up to peer review. And I guarantee there are still many subjects out there who don't have a category. Less waymarkers? As an officer I don't see less submissions to my categories though.

The problem with trying to come up with a new category is that it has to be truly original.  Commercial categories are going to have a tough sell - they always have.  A lot of times, people come up with categories that are already covered by other categories.  Another problem is that someone who has just started with Waymarking thinks - okay, I've entered 20 or 30 waymarks, it's time for me to create a category.  These are people that get hurt the most with rejection because. a.) they do not have enough experience to know what all 1119 categories are so their new category probably has already been covered by another category or b.) do not have enough experience in writing up a waymark to know what needs to be in the description to make a good category description.  I've been doing this it started and I can't recite the requirements for all 1119 of the categories.  I can for about the 100 that I post all of the time, though.

As far as the mandatory demand for the new category be put through the forum.  This is absolutely voluntary - I said so in my reply to you.  You know what, though?  Tell me that the opinions and help of people who have had 15 years experience actually creating waymarks and could have pointed out the issues HERE instead of pointing out the issues in Peer Review wouldn't have been valuable?   It's going to be hard to nigh onto impossible to resubmit this category if it fails Peer Review - that's why the Forums are invaluable.  Get the category right BEFORE it goes to Peer Review, that's what this section of the Forums was designed to do.  It's a tool - nothing more.  You don't have to use it, but then again, Groundspeak recommends its use, people with experience recommend its use, but who are we???

Again, my just opinion - which with 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee at the local diner. 

[+Torgut]

iconions I can think of half a dozen good categories right now. Some were dismissed by the community before on grounds I consider non acceptable and based on sheer ignorance. For example, look at the museums and tell me if they do cover enough areas. Ethnography Museums. Missing. On account they are History museums. They aren't, of course. 

 

Other categories I could see happening: Traces of Communist Regimes. Super interesting, but then, oh boy how can we make it pass when most of US Americans peers know that they will never get close to any of these. However they are all around the world. Cuba, Ethiopia, all Eastern Europe, all Central Asia and other former Soviet Union countries. Notice there is a category for victims of Communist so if that is global enough, so should this monuments and memorabilia of the past (and present) should be.

 

The other day I couldn't find a category to insert a memorial to the victims of a dictatorship. Not global? Not interesting? Not prevalent (sadly it is prevalent)? Redundant?  So, this makes two category I could think of with a snap of fingers. 

 

The category poorly elaborated which is not under votes is also a good idea, of course. Rooftop terraces used to public recreational purposes. Great stuff! 

 

 

Back to the topic, you guys are writing around in circles. Don't tell me what should be, I am talking what it is. Became mandatory de facto and that's regretable and should NEVER be a reason justifying a ney as it became common.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Torgut

[+iconions]

23 hours ago, Torgut said:

iconions I can think of half a dozen good categories right now. Some were dismissed by the community before on grounds I consider non acceptable and based on sheer ignorance. For example, look at the museums and tell me if they do cover enough areas. Ethnography Museums. Missing. On account they are History museums. They aren't, of course. 

 

Other categories I could see happening: Traces of Communist Regimes. Super interesting, but then, oh boy how can we make it pass when most of US Americans peers know that they will never get close to any of these. However they are all around the world. Cuba, Ethiopia, all Eastern Europe, all Central Asia and other former Soviet Union countries. Notice there is a category for victims of Communist so if that is global enough, so should this monuments and memorabilia of the past (and present) should be.

 

The other day I couldn't find a category to insert a memorial to the victims of a dictatorship. Not global? Not interesting? Not prevalent (sadly it is prevalent)? Redundant?  So, this makes two category I could think of with a snap of fingers. 

 

The category poorly elaborated which is not under votes is also a good idea, of course. Rooftop terraces used to public recreational purposes. Great stuff! 

 

 

Back to the topic, you guys are writing around in circles. Don't tell me what should be, I am talking what it is. Became mandatory de facto and that's regretable and should NEVER be a reason justifying a ney as it became common.

I've had to take time to think about this response. 
 
First, just so we are clear, I am not saying that the Forums are absolutely required, however, let's think about this for a moment and let me draw you a picture.
In Peer Review, members can only vote, YEA, NEA, or ABSTAIN on the waymark as presented.  Think about this like Government and the legislature - this is the final reading of the bill.  If a member has problems with the bill all he can do is vote NAY and explain WHY he is voting no and if enough members vote no with him or her, then that bill is dead at that time.
Okay, that said, the OPTIONAL previous step is to take the waymark to the Forums.  Think of this as the Government taking the bill to committee.  This is where potential issues can be found, ironed out, and FIXED BEFORE sending the bill to floor of Government to be voted on.  If nothing else, bringing your potential waymark to the Forums gives you an idea of what other members are thinking and will give you an idea on how the vote will go.  The forum is surgery with a scalpel;  peer review is surgery with a guillotine.  If you want to use the guillotine, that's fine - no crying, though, when the blade comes down and the proposed category is dead - all because you refused to come to the scalpel to have surgery done to fix problems with your waymark. 

Second, blaming other members of the community for the failure of your potential waymarks is the absolute height of arrogance.  Unfortunately, it's the community that gets to decide what the basis of new waymark categories get accepted - not a single member.  This is why it is a community and why the ENTIRE community who is a premium member gets a say on what new categories get accepted.  Your opinion thinking that the opinions of the Waymarking Community is ignorant speaks volumes about why you think the forums are totally unnecessary.  The Community is not a rubber stamp for new categories.  You MUST convince a majority of the community - calling the opinions of that community ignorant isn't a step in the right direction.

[+Torgut]

No, you are not saying that Forums are absolutely required. I am. They shouldn't, but that's where the tide led things around here. I will repeat one last time, very slowly now: it's not admissible that people use the absence of discussion in the forums to explain a Nay. Or else, someone please change the voting guidelines and add it to the four existent ones.

 

Just that, nothing wrong with your elaborated drawn picture, neither I disagree with it.

 

As to your "second", well, honestly I have no idea of what you are talking about, if it's about new categories or new waymarks.

Definitely, there are often members, officers, acting in quite a dubious way, to say the least. There is nothing arrogant to point to whoever denounces that. Along these last 15 years or so there has been plenty of such cases involving many people.

 

Ah. I get it now. You don't agree that confusing History with Ethnography is ignorance. You are in your full right to think so. It's still ignorance though.

 

 

[+iconions]

2 hours ago, Torgut said:

No, you are not saying that Forums are absolutely required. I am. They shouldn't, but that's where the tide led things around here. I will repeat one last time, very slowly now: it's not admissible that people use the absence of discussion in the forums to explain a Nay. Or else, someone please change the voting guidelines and add it to the four existent ones.

 

Just that, nothing wrong with your elaborated drawn picture, neither I disagree with it.

 

As to your "second", well, honestly I have no idea of what you are talking about, if it's about new categories or new waymarks.

Definitely, there are often members, officers, acting in quite a dubious way, to say the least. There is nothing arrogant to point to whoever denounces that. Along these last 15 years or so there has been plenty of such cases involving many people.

 

Ah. I get it now. You don't agree that confusing History with Ethnography is ignorance. You are in your full right to think so. It's still ignorance though.

 

 

Absolutely fine.  Let me see if I have this straight - no one but you gets an informed opinion.  If they express an opinion, they are ignorant.  
Thanks for clearing that up for me.