Will There Be No More - Can There Be No More?

[+ScroogieII]

I believe it was back around the turn of the twentieth century that an officer or employee of the American[?] Patent Office uttered the opinion that (to paraphrase):

"Everything of value has already been invented. Why should we not close the patent office?"

 

A parallel thought might be: "Everything Waymarkable is already included in our Category Master List".

 

Hence, should we not close down this subject?

 

(For the deep thinkers among us, this is more than a simple metaphor!)

The Scrooge

[+FamilieFrohne]

Well - I think, that we have covered many topics, but there are still some ideas around here that may lead to a new category (e.g. the Bat Boxes). But it will be getting harder, to create a new category - more discussions, more strong headwind and denial.

 

So the need to "close down the subject" is not really given.

 

As officer in currently 19 categories, I (personally) think that perhaps we should first re-examine the existing categories, revise them if necessary, and define more clearly what is expected for a post in the category. Some of the categories have very few to no requirements, making it difficult to maintain or even increase a minimum level of quality. I'm sure, that this would be a hard task (probably one for Hercules?) and I'm also sure, that I'm quite alone here with my thinking on that topic.

 

Yours, Erik.

[+ScroogieII]

On 4/6/2024 at 10:34 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

As officer in currently 19 categories, I (personally) think that perhaps we should first re-examine the existing categories, revise them if necessary, and define more clearly what is expected for a post in the category. Some of the categories have very few to no requirements, making it difficult to maintain or even increase a minimum level of quality. I'm sure, that this would be a hard task (probably one for Hercules?) and I'm also sure, that I'm quite alone here with my thinking on that topic.

 

Well, Thank You, Erik. This was just the type of response I was hoping for.

I (personally ) agree with each and every point raised in that paragraph, save for your surety of loneliness in your thinking. After all, you now have 5 (make that 6) upvotes and a giggle.

 

Well, what does the rest of the community have to say to Erik with regard to the above outlined topics?

The Scrooge

PS - as for "Closing the Subject", that was just part of the metaphor, but there's more, if you can divine the hidden meaning.

Edited April 20 by ScroogieII

[+Torgut]

Interesting debate. In my view, there were some awful mistakes in the past which cannot be reverted and will forever be with us. I will give you an example. Think ethnography. It's is a science, a field of knowledge. It's unique, independent. There are thousands of Ethnography Museums all around the world. Once, I decided to try and create this category. It didn't pass, because, to most of the peers, such places should be included in History Museums. Well, probably many of those peers have no clue of what ethnography is. I do. I should, as I am a historian by academical formation. If I browse History Museums I notice that's a good "catch all" category. Everything fits in History. Well, after all, we only have future and past so it's easy to advocate that everything which can exist in a museum makes it a history museum :-) All of this to say: Ethnography Museums should exist as a category but that can't be because there are hundreds of them already - wrongly - included in another category. As I said, this is just an example of the impact of past wrong decisions. 

Additionally I feel that trying to create a category is too much of a trouble. Peers are very demanding, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not so much for the best reasons.  Personally, I don't think I will ever work on it again. I have a few ideas but no patience to go through the process and through the work involved. Eventually, for nothing. And I firmly believe that more than an exhaustion of possible categories, this is the key reason for the lack of them. 

 

To finalize, it's obvious that less and less people are into WM. So, if there is not a considerable mass of thinking and working minds, chances of seeing something happen shrink. 

Edited April 9 by Torgut

[+Torgut]

14 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

 

 

Well, what does the rest of the community have to say to Erik with regard to the above outlined topics?

The Scrooge

 

 

That the idea of imposing more troubles to whoever is contributing is awful. The requirements are good as they are and above all are those which the peers voted (well, it's editable, I know,  but usually it applies what I said). Leave the categories alone. If something, I know quite a few which should be simplified. A practical example: gazebos. Unaware of the detail, I submitted a gazebo which has a square shape. Declined. Very fairly so as it says in the category that gazebos must be hexagonal or octagonal. What the heck!? I could give many more examples. So, talk about simplify, not complicate. 

[+FamilieFrohne]

On 4/9/2024 at 3:38 PM, Torgut said:

The requirements are good as they are

If I understood you right, a category with no requirements to the text at all for posting is an ideal category: just a photo, the title, the coordinates and a simple short description and you are good to go (like in Giant 24h Vending Machines). Or even better: no text and not a photograph at all (like in the Bismarck towers - see attached image). As an officer you really do not have a guideline to the category, which makes it difficult to decide if the the waymark should be a fit to the category. And if you finally decline, it leads to (as I see it) fruitless discussions with the submitting waymarker.

 

As we do not have general requirements to the submission of a waymark (like at least a mandatory picture and some english text in the long description), we in the officers role have to rely on the requirements and if they are not given, it often gets complicated.

 

 

On 4/9/2024 at 3:38 PM, Torgut said:

So, talk about simplify, not complicate. 

I agree, that some category requirements are too restrictive (like the Gazebo thingy you mentioned) and could be reworked. But I do not like to complicate things, I like a clear understanding, what should be acceptable for a specific category which currently has no requirements. That would really help.

 

[+Torgut]

If you understand me right, simplify is better than complicate but above all, respect what was approved in poll is better than trick users with a category set of rules and then change them. That's something politicians like to do. People usually are not fond of these things. Neither I am. 

I understand your concerns about the difficulty of being an officer. In fact, it's not difficult, it's a matter of approve pretty much everything. If in your heart you don't feel that should be done, you can always resign your position as an officer of such categories. Just saying.

 

[+elyob]

The Bat House category proves that there are still interesting categories hiding out there.

 

The Bat House category also proves that our peers are demanding quality, so demanding that it can feel like conflict among us.  Bring it on.  We must have ever greater demands for greater quality.  Be it categories or waymarks: quality not quantity.

[+Bear and Ragged]

6 hours ago, Torgut said:

I understand your concerns about the difficulty of being an officer. In fact, it's not difficult, it's a matter of approve pretty much everything. If in your heart you don't feel that should be done, you can always resign your position as an officer of such categories. Just saying.

 

Lets just go to "Auto-approve" for waymarks submitted to any category.

 

Can we try to keep 'some' quality to Waymarking?

[+FamilieFrohne]

5 hours ago, Torgut said:

If you understand me right, simplify is better than complicate but above all, respect what was approved in poll is better than trick users with a category set of rules and then change them.

So you see the changes done to any category description after the poll as a violation of the acceptance of the community.

Let's see. That would mean:

• We should lock the possibilty to change anything in the category once the community has voted upon.
• We would have to call for a vote when the leader, the officers or the mayority of the waymarkers think, they need to change something in the category.
• The community has to approve the change with at least simple better a 2/3 majority.

I'm sure that this could be arranged somehow if the community really wants that feature (at least the locking of the category should be makeable).

BTW: That would also apply to simplifying or expanding a category.

 

6 hours ago, Torgut said:

That's something politicians like to do. People usually are not fond of these things. Neither I am.

Well ... here you are telling me to be like a politician, as I just expressed my wish to improve the game with the above post. And with this comparison you are also implying that I'm not trustworthy and likable, as I could change something that was not agreed upon.

 

Would it be better, if I keep my opinion and my ideas to myself then, be a good sheep and nod to all someone else is writing, because they are longer part of the game than myself and thus know better? Sorry to disappoint you, but if I have something to say, I'll try - hopefully in a calm, constructive and matter-of-fact tone.

 

5 hours ago, Torgut said:

 In fact, it's not difficult, it's a matter of approve pretty much everything.

Then why should we have officers at all when all waymarks should be approved?

Did I hear something about them being a quality gate? Quality - really?

 

And the next thought right in follow-up: Why should we have categories, when all is approved?

You could collapse it to one main category which contains all waymarks - which would be finally just a collection of coordinates (sometimes with text and pictures).

[+Torgut]

19 hours ago, elyob said:

The Bat House category proves that there are still interesting categories hiding out there.

 

The Bat House category also proves that our peers are demanding quality, so demanding that it can feel like conflict among us.  Bring it on.  We must have ever greater demands for greater quality.  Be it categories or waymarks: quality not quantity.

No, it shows there are still silly categories hidden out there. If that Bat House is possible, anything is possible, given the author of the crazy idea massages conveniently the peers in this forums with smooth talk and a fantastic presentation of the category. 

[+Torgut]

13 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

 

Lets just go to "Auto-approve" for waymarks submitted to any category.

 

Can we try to keep 'some' quality to Waymarking?

 I have another fantastic idea: why not, just saying, why not let's just follow each category requirements and rules and respect what was approved in the poll. 

[+Torgut]

12 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

So you see the changes done to any category description after the poll as a violation of the acceptance of the community.

Let's see. That would mean:

• We should lock the possibilty to change anything in the category once the community has voted upon.
• We would have to call for a vote when the leader, the officers or the mayority of the waymarkers think, they need to change something in the category.
• The community has to approve the change with at least simple better a 2/3 majority.

I'm sure that this could be arranged somehow if the community really wants that feature (at least the locking of the category should be makeable).

BTW: That would also apply to simplifying or expanding a category.

 

Well ... here you are telling me to be like a politician, as I just expressed my wish to improve the game with the above post. And with this comparison you are also implying that I'm not trustworthy and likable, as I could change something that was not agreed upon.

 

Would it be better, if I keep my opinion and my ideas to myself then, be a good sheep and nod to all someone else is writing, because they are longer part of the game than myself and thus know better? Sorry to disappoint you, but if I have something to say, I'll try - hopefully in a calm, constructive and matter-of-fact tone.

 

Then why should we have officers at all when all waymarks should be approved?

Did I hear something about them being a quality gate? Quality - really?

 

And the next thought right in follow-up: Why should we have categories, when all is approved?

You could collapse it to one main category which contains all waymarks - which would be finally just a collection of coordinates (sometimes with text and pictures).

 

It's not what I see, it is what it is. If you vote in a party that promises an economical liberal policy and one month after the elections they nationalize all there is to nationalize in a country, that's not right. Same here. Ideally, a batch of changes should go out for approval by poll. If someone makes it possible, by all means, sounds great. As you said. But realistically we know that WM is pretty much abandoned by Groundspeak, so we are talking of nothing but dreams. 

 

"Then why should we have officers at all when all waymarks should be approved?"

To make category rules work. If they are minimal, then minimal action. Not like some officers who create non-existent rules and requirements because they like them, not because they really exist in the category recquirements.

[+elyob]

Dear OP,

 

Are you sorry you asked?

[+Ariberna]

"I submitted a gazebo which has a square shape. Declined. Very fairly so as it says in the category that gazebos must be hexagonal or octagonal. What the heck!? I could give many more examples. So, talk about simplify, not complicate. "

 

That sometimes depends on the reviewer who touches you. Thank goodness more reviewers are now being introduced in many categories.
Now and there is less mafia in that subject and there are new nice reviewers.
In gazebos, however if it is round you get approved.
There are categories where it depends on who submits it is voted on or approved or denied, but that topic was talked about and censored in other forums.

 

That said, now there are more reviewers (who are not those who have hundreds of categories) contributing. Which I love.

 

Can we try to maintain "some" quality in Waymarking?   This question is sometimes difficult and even seems to me a bit "false" at times. We can't have a party and a geocoin all happy because there were a million WM some time ago and then start to tighten categories to approve less WM or start to change and allow less things. Do you want quality or do you want 2 million? Is this professional? Does anyone get paid for it?

Right now I see new people doing WM (and plenty of them in places like Spain, France, Netherlands, etc) who have been doing it for a long time and didn't get tired of it. So I don't think there is a loss of interest. In fact there are times when they say they want something more than geocaching.

[+pmaupin]

1 hour ago, Ariberna said:

Now and there is less mafia in that subject and there are new nice reviewers.

Can you explain.

 

1 hour ago, Ariberna said:

 

1 hour ago, Ariberna said:

That said, now there are more reviewers (who are not those who have hundreds of categories) contributing. Which I love.

Can you explain.

[+Ariberna]

No, sorry, I refuse to bring this forum what has been closed in others or even censored. As well as explanations to our wayfrog.
A little memory.

Regards.

[Country_Wife]

Going back to the original question, I have recently noticed a missing category. Although there are categories for Chinese, Thai, and Japanese restaurants, there is nothing for Indian restaurants, although India arguably has a major global cuisine of equal stature.

 

Now, I’m not going to propose yet another restaurant category, because I find that kind of category not very interesting or challenging. If someone else brought this forward, though, I’d feel obliged to support it out of fairness.

 

Or is there some kind of unspoken moratorium on certain types of new categories? I hope I’m not stirring up an old controversy here!

Edited April 14 by Country_Wife

[+Ariberna]

1 hour ago, Country_Wife said:

Going back to the original question, I have recently noticed a missing category. Although there are categories for Chinese, Thai, and Japanese restaurants, there is nothing for Indian restaurants, although India arguably has a major global cuisine of equal stature.

 

Now, I’m not going to propose yet another restaurant category, because I find that kind of category not very interesting or challenging. If someone else brought this forward, though, I’d feel obliged to support it out of fairness.

 

Or is there some kind of unspoken moratorium on certain types of new categories? I hope I’m not stirring up an old controversy here!

 

This was also discussed in a forum in which some reviewer in an arrogant way said that as long as he was there, one more business category would not be approved... and he had to shut his mouth because it was approved pancakes https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6735dbf5-d4d1-4c75-b4e1-038e79a62d45

 

If you like a category, follow what the others follow; make a group, post in the forum and then vote.
That kind of voting for new categories, which also brought its debates, is what is worth in the community to create categories, and not what you think about whether it is good or not, if it is educational, if it is stupid...
(the Indian restaurants thing I already realized a year ago) that I took pictures in these restaurants and then I saw that I could not create them.

 

What I like is that they are global and can be found almost everywhere in the world. I always complained that there are over 400 exclusive to North America.
From these, except for the heritage categories, in which each country, area of the USA or Canada, or countries as a whole are logically excluded.

Edited April 14 by Ariberna

[Country_Wife]

Thanks for the context! Now I’m wondering if I really should propose a category for Indian restaurants! I’ve got a lot going on at the moment (I almost said “a lot on my plate”) but I might do this later. If nothing else, I will learn more about the process by trying it out for a category that I don’t feel that strongly about.  

 

Food for thought! (Oops, sorry.)

[+elyob]

Though I usually feel like the only one, I actually like the business categories.  I also happen to love the bat box category. Weird or what.  The odds of your Indian Restaurants category being approved are almost zero.  But why not experience the process.  It won't be fun but you will learn a great deal.  The first step in the process is to start a relevant group.  If you do start such a group, I will join that group.  As you go through the process, remember to test your ideas here.

[Country_Wife]

I will put it on my “to do” list!

[+Torgut]

1) Indian Restaurants: by all means. I don't like so much business categories because I see (or saw, as we are past it now) the the threat of having thousands of categories, one for each brand out there. These general and relevant categories are different and love them.

2) Elyob, for me it's weird, for you it's not, and we can agree on disagree. My problems with the bat thing are: 1) if there is a category for bat boxes then categories for animal shelters of each species can exist and it goes back to the excessive multitude of super specific categories; 2) At 58 and having traveling over 120 countries with eyes wide open I never saw a bat box. That makes me wonder if the category doesn't fail one of the criteria expected. 

3) Country_wife... don't. That's a path for frustration. 

Edited April 20 by Torgut

[+Torgut]

On 4/14/2024 at 8:36 AM, Ariberna said:

No, sorry, I refuse to bring this forum what has been closed in others or even censored. As well as explanations to our wayfrog.
A little memory.

Regards.

 

Very well said. Because he's watching us:
 

[+ScroogieII]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:17 AM, elyob said:

Dear OP,

 

Are you sorry you asked?

 

No, I'm actually having fun finally getting the time to read all the responses. I am somewhat surprised by the sudden spate of activity on this thread, but not at all dismayed. A few people have managed to get a bit off their chests here, which is seldom a bad thing.

 

But Thanks for asking.

The Scrooge

 

On 4/14/2024 at 12:36 AM, Ariberna said:

No, sorry, I refuse to bring this forum what has been closed in others or even censored. As well as explanations to our wayfrog.
A little memory.

Regards.

Could you explain it to me, then? I mean personally, as opposed to in the forum. I believe I know your meaning, but am not 100% certain.

The Scrooge

[+ScroogieII]

On 4/14/2024 at 6:26 AM, Country_Wife said:

Or is there some kind of unspoken moratorium on certain types of new categories? I hope I’m not stirring up an old controversy here!

 

Now, CW, don't ever abuse yourself of the notion that we are opposed to controversy hereabouts. Witness this very thread, for example.

I'll admit that there are those who believe themselves to be taller than others, or weightier than others, but, when all is said and done each of us has exactly ONE vote on each and every matter. Translation: If anyone feels a particular category needs to see the light of day, I would encourage them to follow their heart.

 

The Scrooge.

Edited April 20 by ScroogieII

[+ScroogieII]

13 hours ago, Torgut said:

Very well said. Because he's watching us:

 

Paranoia R US?

[+ScroogieII]

On 4/14/2024 at 8:46 AM, Country_Wife said:

Thanks for the context! Now I’m wondering if I really should propose a category for Indian restaurants! I’ve got a lot going on at the moment (I almost said “a lot on my plate”) but I might do this later. If nothing else, I will learn more about the process by trying it out for a category that I don’t feel that strongly about.  

 

Food for thought! (Oops, sorry.)

 

And what's life without a little P[h]un?!?!

I, too, would join your category, and even help you build it, should you be silly enough to ask.

The Scrooge

[+Torgut]

9 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

Paranoia R US?

 

No, paranoia is not my style. Me and Ariberna know who's the fascist watching. 

[wayfrog]

Let's get back on topic, please.

[+ScroogieII]

 

On 4/22/2024 at 7:23 AM, wayfrog said:

Let's get back on topic, please.

 

I'm sorry Wayfroggie, but at the moment I'm unable to "get back on topic".

 

This is, however irrelevant:

 

An addendum to this thread:

 

You see, my beloved cat, known to both myself, and many others, as The Pud,, (as  in "Puddy Tat", as in "I taut I taw a Puddy Tat"), passed away yesterday. It was a very sad and tearful day for myself. The Pud  has been both a  a constant companion and a true friend of mine for at least the past dozen years. I'll miss her terribly.

I only ask that you salute, or toast, or respect, her in whatever might be the manner of your nationality, in return for which I thank you humbly and greatly.

 

 

 

Our Pud

 

Thank You, Folks AND Thank You, Wayfroggie,

The Scrooge, Keith

Edited April 26 by ScroogieII

[wayfrog]

Closing this topic. Condolences via direct messages please. Thanks.