Crossposting

[+PISA-caching]

The discussion about what should be excluded/included in the Funerary Arts category made me think about crossposting in general. And I would really like to hear what other WMers think about it.

 

For me, the categories are something like a unified search term, so that if I want to find f.e. Elevated Buildings, I don't have to search for "elevated", "raised", "on stilts" etc. to find all of them. Another good example is "This old church", "Roman Catholic Churches", "Cathedrals" and the like. If I want to find cathedrals, I go to the according category and if I'm interested in old churches (regardless of size and religion) I go to the other and so on.

 

We all know that there are some waymarks that fit in many categories, while others just fit in one. But I don't understand the general logic and/or the reason for excluding/including waymarks from one category, that also fits in another one. Some years ago I used to sell some of my photos on an online stock photo agency. Whenever I uploaded a photo, I added as many search terms as I could come up with. "People", "woman", "child", "house",... (whatever you could see on the photo). What, if somebody had said "You can either choose 'people' OR 'woman', but not both"? We all (or at least most of us) want our WMs to be found. So why do I have to choose whether I create a WM in category A or B, if it fits perfectly in both categories. Or, in other words: Why do we say that category B is looking for this or that, but nothing that also fits in category A? I really don't get it.

 

In a perfect world we would create ONE waymark for f.e. the Eiffel Tower and give that one waymark all the categories that the Eiffel Tower fits in. I know, that this will most likely never happen, but why do we (IMHO unnecessarily) limit the number of waymarks? Is it to save space on the hard discs of Groundspeak, because several waymarks for the same site means multiple photos or what is the reason?

 

Let me know, what you think (but don't shoot me). 

[Becktracker]

I have a custom of '1 object, one waymark posted', because I want to allow future waymarkers to post some waymarks and have the same fun that I have. I see some other waymarkers taking a building and crosspost the hell of it. I think it's subjectieve what your rules are, so go ahead if you want.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Becktracker

[+PISA-caching]

I guess it depends a lot on the situation you're facing. As it is here in Vienna, Austria I'm more or less the only WMer, who is posting new waymarks, but there are some WMers who visit a waymark every now and then (and I think they like that they can post visits to several waymarks with just one photo of a church ). And Vienna is full of potential waymarks, so IF one day another WMer decides to start posting waymarks, there are still plenty of them to create. Anyway, apart from crossposting or not in existing categories, I don't understand why we exclude waymarks from a new category B, because they also fit (and are probably already listed) in category A.

Edited August 27, 2021 by PISA-caching

[+FamilieFrohne]

Here in Brühl (Northrhine-Westphalia, Germany) the situation is nearly the same: I'm the only one posting waymarks in the city since last August and its interesting what you can learn about your city. I try to make many WMs in different categories with different locations, but sometimes the location fits in more than one category - and so I do not limit myself and do a crosspost.

 

But the question was (as I understood it): Why should a waymark be denied in a category B when it was published in category A?

 

Currently only one reason that comes to my mind, is when category B is a more generic class than category A (i.e. "Religious Buildings Multifarious" as a sample for B is a more generic category than "Roman Catholic Churches" for A), so the exclusion of the category seems right to me. If we get another new and more specific category C (i.e. "Pastafari Churches") we could move the ones fitting in the generic category B to the new category C (which could mean a lot of work for the officers) or keep the old entries in category B and allow no new ones fitting the category C (which could lead to duplicates).

[+iconions]

Here's my take - I'm usually working either historic buildings on the National Register here in the US or I'm in a cemetery working Woodmen or Historic figures or what not.  I'm doing some significant research, especially on these buildings, and yes, if I find that the building was a former bank, or a former Post Office, or has a cornerstone, or whatever, I am going to post whatever waymarks are going to be germaine for that situation.  Think about it, your research isn't just for other waymarkers, it could be useful for students, etc.  Cross posting could draw someone interested in former banks, but not in the National Register.  Also, if my research was deep enough, another waymarker may not FIND that reference to the former Post Office, etc.

If you only want to post one waymark per object, great!  Don't, however, get upset if another waymarker follows behind you and grabs however many waymarks they can find on that object - 99.9% will not followup with just one - I wouldn't, especially if I wrote a very lengthy long description...

[+fi67]

I like some decent amount of crossposting, especially across departments, but I hardly ever do it between two closely related categories (sometimes, it depends).

 

There are thousands of ways to play this game. I have mine and you have yours, and I have absolutely no problem when someone's goal is to constantly beat their own crossposting record. It's fun and it does not hurt anybody. I admit it is a mess. But Waymarking as such is a mess, a lovely anarchic chaos.

 

Ironically, whenever some crossposting despising officers try to limit this in their category, they usually just increase the chaos. That said, there are some cases where exclusions from a category make sense and should be observed. These are the categories that would completely contain another - usually older - category. A 100% overlap is no overlap anymore. The second case are catch-all categories, created to fill the gaps between a group of similar categories, where those gaps are many but each too small to justify a category of their own.

[+PISA-caching]

18 hours ago, fi67 said:

Ironically, whenever some crossposting despising officers try to limit this in their category, they usually just increase the chaos.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. I understand and agree that new categories that fills some kind of gap to similar categories will not accept WMs that fit in any of the other related categories (f.e. Religious Buildings Multifarious simply says: "Religious Buildings Multifarious will NOT accept any place of worship that can be approved in any existing designated 'denominational' religious building category."). I'm 100% fine with that. A church is either Roman Catholic or Presbyterian or whatever OR something else. But there are examples, where a category excludes WMs (that would perfectly fit to the general idea and name of the category), because they are also allowed in other categories.

 

I don't want to point at any certain category, but I will try to explain with my own category Chronograms. Many of these chronograms refer to the year, the building/structure was erected. One could say that a building with a chronogram on the facade, telling the year of the construction, is a "Dated Building" or a "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious". Most likely such a building/structure would be accepted in either of the two categories. But would I allow just chronograms that don't qualify the building for one of these two categories? Hell, no! I don't know, if anybody ever made such a crossposting, but even IF somebody did, I would never limit the number of WMs in my category for that reason. Whoever is interested in Chronograms, should find ALL of them, that ever have been documented with a WM, in that category. On the other side: Should "Dated Buildings ..." and/or "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious" deny WMs, that use a chronogram to date themselves? Again, no (IMHO)!

 

Same goes with "Feeding the Animals". This category doesn't exclude any other category (f.e. Zoos, Petting Farms and Zoos, Fish Hatcheries etc.), because if you want to go and feed some animals together with your children, why would you have to check "Feeding the Animals" and additionally all the Zoos (IF they allow feeding), Fish Hatcheries (IF they allow feeding) and so on? But that's exactly what I see with other categories. You are interested in a certain topic and have a look at the category. But in some cases you also have to check all the categories, that are excluded, because they most likely contain WM that also fit to the topic you are looking for. See what I mean?

 

My impression is - and that's really sad to say (and hopefully not true) - that some officers create categories and think about how difficult/easy it will be for the officers to approve the WMs, how difficult/easy it will be for the WMers to understand why their WM has been declined or not, or how to get just "interesting" WMs in their category. But we should also think about the visitors, who IMHO have the right to find all the WM of one topic in one category and not one category, plus a little bit of the other category and some WMs in a third category etc.

[401Photos]

Perhaps this topic arose from my "What Category for This?" post about a denied WM that ended up fitting another category?

I located and photographed my first chapel in a cemetery last week, did a wee bit of online research, and included a verbatim quote from the church's website in my write up. I learned that, along with providing respite for mourners from inclement weather, the chapel also has space for 253 cremation urns. That the building is also a final resting place for human remains is not obvious to visitors who only see the outside -- it just looks like a small, unmarked chapel.

 

So...My [too] thorough description disqualified my entry as a Cemetery Chapel. Had I not included the church's final sentence, though deceptive, it would most likely have been approved, the admins would be none the wiser, and folks looking for "Cemetery Chapels" in Rhode Island would have another listed in the group to visit. Now it is only listed in "Mausoleums" -- a missed cross posting opportunity. (St. Joseph Chapel) Oh, well.

 

I appreciate that each category has to have its own set of guidelines, but...as a still relatively new player (just under 3 years and 1000 WMs), there have been times that manager decisions seem unnecessarily stringent and/or biased. (No hard feelings against the good Cemetery Chapel folk, I promise!) As stated above and many times in the Forum before, there are different ways to participate in Waymarking, from in-depth research to purely mega quantity goals. I play the game for my own amusement and I contribute just as equally to help other people. Admittedly, yes, I *can* find another cemetery chapel and get my first badge in that category...it's not THAT important, but still...[/rant]

[+iconions]

13 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

That's exactly what I was thinking. I understand and agree that new categories that fills some kind of gap to similar categories will not accept WMs that fit in any of the other related categories (f.e. Religious Buildings Multifarious simply says: "Religious Buildings Multifarious will NOT accept any place of worship that can be approved in any existing designated 'denominational' religious building category."). I'm 100% fine with that. A church is either Roman Catholic or Presbyterian or whatever OR something else. But there are examples, where a category excludes WMs (that would perfectly fit to the general idea and name of the category), because they are also allowed in other categories.

 

I don't want to point at any certain category, but I will try to explain with my own category Chronograms. Many of these chronograms refer to the year, the building/structure was erected. One could say that a building with a chronogram on the facade, telling the year of the construction, is a "Dated Building" or a "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious". Most likely such a building/structure would be accepted in either of the two categories. But would I allow just chronograms that don't qualify the building for one of these two categories? Hell, no! I don't know, if anybody ever made such a crossposting, but even IF somebody did, I would never limit the number of WMs in my category for that reason. Whoever is interested in Chronograms, should find ALL of them, that ever have been documented with a WM, in that category. On the other side: Should "Dated Buildings ..." and/or "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious" deny WMs, that use a chronogram to date themselves? Again, no (IMHO)!

 

Same goes with "Feeding the Animals". This category doesn't exclude any other category (f.e. Zoos, Petting Farms and Zoos, Fish Hatcheries etc.), because if you want to go and feed some animals together with your children, why would you have to check "Feeding the Animals" and additionally all the Zoos (IF they allow feeding), Fish Hatcheries (IF they allow feeding) and so on? But that's exactly what I see with other categories. You are interested in a certain topic and have a look at the category. But in some cases you also have to check all the categories, that are excluded, because they most likely contain WM that also fit to the topic you are looking for. See what I mean?

 

My impression is - and that's really sad to say (and hopefully not true) - that some officers create categories and think about how difficult/easy it will be for the officers to approve the WMs, how difficult/easy it will be for the WMers to understand why their WM has been declined or not, or how to get just "interesting" WMs in their category. But we should also think about the visitors, who IMHO have the right to find all the WM of one topic in one category and not one category, plus a little bit of the other category and some WMs in a third category etc.

That's pretty funny - you called out the same waymarker on two of the three categories.
Just to be fair, and to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples and not to toaster ovens, the Feeding the Animals category isn't trying to be the catch-all category like Dated Buildings Multifarious is.   The reason for all of the restrictions is because of the catch-all nature of the category - if the founder just allowed anything with a date, then it wouldn't have passed peer review - too broad and covered by other categories - which is one of the four main reviewable tenets.  The founder HAD to be VERY restrictive of what could and couldn't be accepted because of what he was trying to get waymarked.  Dated buildings weren't allowing non-historical plaques or other kinds of very specific dated material and it was better to get that put in as a category than to get the category denied for being too broad.  

Your impression isn't true.  Categories are created to: a.) get approved in peer review; and b.) create a set minimum expectation to both the waymarker AND the officer of what is expected as to a successful waymark.  Unfortunately, the b part is just the minimum - your statement about "interesting" waymarks is dependent on the waymarker - not the officer and certainly not on the category creator.  The category creator gives the framework - the skeleton for the waymark.  The waymarker can either pretend s/he is in 7th grade art class and turn that in and get by; or actually go above and beyond the minimums and try to create a Picasso; a Rembrandt; a Pollock.  That's on the waymarker - not on the officer or the category creator.  As far as officers not understanding what is or isn't acceptable in a category - that officer has a duty to get with the category creator and ASK!!!!!  I still ask for clarification and I have been doing this since it started.

 

 

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, iconions said:

As far as officers not understanding what is or isn't acceptable in a category - that officer has a duty to get with the category creator and ASK!!!!!  I still ask for clarification and I have been doing this since it started.

I recently asked for clarification in a category in which I was doing most of the recent reviewing. I was shot down by the leader and my question ignored. 

[+PISA-caching]

5 hours ago, iconions said:

That's pretty funny - you called out the same waymarker on two of the three categories.

 

I blame it to my lack of English, but I don't understand what you are trying to say with that sentence. 

 

5 hours ago, iconions said:

Just to be fair, and to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples and not to toaster ovens, the Feeding the Animals category isn't trying to be the catch-all category like Dated Buildings Multifarious is.   The reason for all of the restrictions is because of the catch-all nature of the category - if the founder just allowed anything with a date, then it wouldn't have passed peer review - too broad and covered by other categories - which is one of the four main reviewable tenets.  The founder HAD to be VERY restrictive of what could and couldn't be accepted because of what he was trying to get waymarked.  Dated buildings weren't allowing non-historical plaques or other kinds of very specific dated material and it was better to get that put in as a category than to get the category denied for being too broad.  

 

I once again blame it to my lack of English, but in my example I was trying to say: The Chronograms category shouldn't (and doesn't) exclude all the WM that would also fit in Dated Buildings and the Dated Buildings category shouldn't (and - as far as I know - doesn't) exlude Chronograms (I never tried posting a Dated Building that was dated with a chronogram, but maybe I will one day). I was not talking about any other restrictions of either of the two categories. It was a theoretical example, of what COULD have been added to the category descriptions (but wasn't).

 

5 hours ago, iconions said:

Unfortunately, the b part is just the minimum - your statement about "interesting" waymarks is dependent on the waymarker - not the officer and certainly not on the category creator.

 

Quote from the (maybe one day) category "Funerary Art": Our category, 'Funerary Art' is looking for those stunning, unique 'WOW' works of art. 

 

 

[+iconions]

9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I recently asked for clarification in a category in which I was doing most of the recent reviewing. I was shot down by the leader and my question ignored. 

I know I appreciated you getting back with me helping me get past my ignorance on a category I was reviewing - it was appreciated.   
As far as the other category - I would rather someone get with me first than get pissed off at me after I denied it.