Groundspeak Portal

Recently I reviewed a waymark where the entire description was in blue font.  I accepted the waymark, but asked that the font be changed to standard black as I thought the all blue detracted from the waymark.

The person wrote to Groundspeak to complain, evidently, and received the following reply, which was forwarded to me:

"It may be more pleasing to the eye if the text is black, and the group officers have the powers to approve or deny a Waymark based on the category requirements, but HTML formatting for the most part is not a part of this review and your Waymarks should be allowed with blue text
.

I'm being cryptic on purpose, but would like to say that I'm seeing a trend here.

max and 99:

I'm being cryptic on purpose, but would like to say that I'm seeing a trend here.

Being cryptic is not very useful.  If you have something to say, then say it.

The only issue I'm trying to raise here is the response from Groundspeak Community Support that seems to imply that they are willing to review our reviews and override them if they think they are inappropriate - or, in this case, merely a reviewers suggestions.  Seems like a dangerous policy.

I'm also interested in finding out if anyone else has had this experience. 
Or, has anyone else ever complained to Groundspeak Support about a waymark review? 

I'm thinking that this was just a well-meaning but misdirected attempt to "support" in response to a complaint since I've never heard of this happening before.  I'm just trying to find out what's going on.

I've sent a message to "Support," so I'll let you know what I hear.  Someone from Groundspeak may respond here, which I think would be good, just to clarify this issue.  (The issue is not whether I'm right or wrong in my suggsetions, but whether our reviews can be reviewed and overturned).

I guess the reviewing powers we have are only within the writen category rules. So we can ask politely if one could fix font color, but it is totally waymarkers choice if they are willing to do so. I understood that GS message so that officer in any category cannot deny waymarks with rule that is not writen in category requirements. And I guess it is good for waymarkers point of view to have such a place where to complain if that happens.

Looking at this question from "outside" it seem´s that the person in question didn´t like the proposition to change the color so asked Groundspeak if that was a reason to deny the WM (It´s not clear if all the story was told and it may lead someone to think the WM was denied).
Just a suposition.
Never heard of such intromission from groundspeak (not that i would be surprised) except from checkmark aproving waymarks instead of absent leaders/officers.
I´ve had questions both as an officer and as a submitter but never woth complaints to groundspeak.
I would wait to see what they answer.

small oaks:

I understood that GS message so that officer in any category cannot deny waymarks with rule that is not writen in category requirements.

In general this is true, but not always.   Part of a reviewers responsibilities, as I see it, is not only to assure that a waymark meets all of the posted requirements, but also to assess the overall quality of a waymark.  There is almost always an element of subjectivity in the process of reviewing a waymark.

If someone submits a waymark with one or two blurry photos and a one sentence description, it may technically meet all posted requirements, but it is my responsibility as a reviewer to decline such a waymark.   Do we have to write for every category, "Waymarks with blurry photos will not be accepted?"  Some things are a matter of common sense.  It is also impossible to write a category description to cover every possible situation that may arise.  It would never occur to me that someone would start using an all-colored font, for instance.  But, it wasn't a major issue, so I accepted these waymarks (in more than one category) and made the suggestion/request that a change be made, along with other suggestions for improving the waymark. 

By the same token, a reviewer should be free to accept a waymark, in some cases, where the posted requirements aren't met.  Let's say a category requires two photos, but only one is submitted.  Under some circumstances such a waymark may be acceptable.  I try to be flexible and take each waymark on its own merits and consider all circumstances.  My personal approach is to be more inclusive than exclusive, and declining a waymark is always done reluctantly.  Sometimes I get it wrong, of course, but that is really not my point in this thread.  My concern is Groundspeak support's response, and concern about the overall policy.

We have people reviewing waymarks, not a machine.  We exercise our best judgement.  I try to be reasonable, but sometimes miss a call.   And, most people receive suggestions well, but there are always a few who become contentious. 

small oaks:

And I guess it is good for waymarkers point of view to have such a place where to complain if that happens.

If every waymarker who disagreed with a reviewers comments started complaining to Groundspeak customer support about it, they would quickly become inundated!   This was not even about a waymark being declined, mind you, just a request and suggestion.  It is a relatively minor issue.  And, this is really the point of this thread, "Should someone at Groundspeak support be telling volunteer reviewers what they must accept, or what suggestions and requests they cannot make?"  Of course this communication went directly to the waymarker NOT to me.  I found out only because the waymarker forwarded it to me.  So, the reviewer, in this case, was totally bypassed.   I can think of a number of responses that would have been more appropriate.

I'll chime in with what must have been a parallel happening to this story.

I too saw several waymarks from a person using blue text. I wrote them a personal side note asking, out of curiosity, why they used blue text, as it made it harder to find the links in their text. Blue is the default color used to show hot text links for most web browsers.

I got kind of a flippant response saying "Because I like blue!" and they were sorry that they'd broken some waymarking rule. As a follow-up, I replied to them that it wasn't a waymarking "rule", but more of a broader web text style issue and pointed them to rule 1, Writing effective link text.

I commented that they were swimming against the tide (of the web), by just kind of doing their own thing, stylistically. It's certainly their choice to do so, but I also think it lowers the quality of the waymarking site, when individuals choose to deviate from standard behaviors for style.

(Retired from a job in Quality Assurance, but not really in my life.)

Would it be easier to just tweak the WM after approval? Then lock it.

I don't make my waymarks for my own use, I make them for others to use. I rarely go back and look at my own waymark after it's been submitted.

I can see that TPTB might weigh in on a problematic issue, but a font color request? Really?

I do not think waymarks should be created with blue font. It is ridiculous and should not be allowed. The blue hurts my eyes and makes hot links impossible to located So, as far as I am concerned, it is a non-issue. So, here is what we should do:
1. Add to the submission requirements to include only black text should be used unless you are using a different color font to highlight a special portion of text critical to the waymark. I often do this. No big deal and totally acceptable.
2. Existing waymarks with that ridiculous color must be edited and then locked.

For goodness sakes, please do not let one individual prevent us from enjoying what we all love...waymarking! Clearly the individual has an issue. For all we know it could be some kind of illness so let us not judge. Let us just fix what we all know to be wrong. Groundspeak know the difference between right and wrong and they have always done their best to support US. So, we need to stick together on such issues, even one as silly as this, to show unity and demonstrate the collectiveness of our will.

Larry, you are a critical and important component of waymarking. Without you we are all them much weaker. Change that waymark. Lock it. I support you because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Don't let the blue make you blue! :0)

I have never locked a waymark, and I'm not about to begin now - at least not over this relatively minor point. 

As I've tried to make clear, the specifics of this particular case are NOT the issue at all.

For me, the issue distills down to two major items that I believe need some definitive action.

1).  Guidelines for volunteer waymark reviewers need to be created and clearly expressed and published.

      Right now, there is nothing on Waymarking.com that does this, not even in the discussion of the duties of a group leader or officer.  As long as people are reasonable, we seem to stumble along fine without it, I guess.   But, we can't always count on it.  My approach seems reasonable to me, but the people at customer support are telling me that I must approve waymarks if they meet the minimum published criteria even if I think there is something else about the waymark that I think disqualifies it.  If this is the policy that is going to be backed up by customer support, then we should have this in writing so we know what the rules are.  (The reasoning could work the other way.  Since blue font is not prohibited, then it must be allowed; since asking for changes to a waymark that aren't specified in the description is not prohibited by any written Groundspeak policy, then it should be allowed).

2).  Groundspeak policy for oversight of the volunteer waymark reviewing process must also be clearly written and published so we all know what the procedure is that we're working under.

It really came as a shock to me that someone from customer support would presume to issue these kinds of directives.   I've been reviewing waymarks since the beginning, with a few under my belt now, and I've never, ever heard of this happening.  Maybe it has been this way all along, because this came to my attention only because the waymarker forwarded the message to me.  But, it seems a radical departure to me from the statement (in regard to category devlopment) that the Groundspeak staff do not consider themselves to be the "waymark police."

====
So, all I'm saying here is that we need these two issues explicitly clarified - guidelines for volunteer waymark reviewers and the policy for oversight of the review process.
====

(Of course, I do have opinions on those two items, but that's all I'll say at the moment).

And, I'm corresponding with someone at customer support, so we'll see what comes of it.


On the other note that MathTeacher raises:  I'm not amending all of my categories to address the specific issue of font color.  You know, some time ago we had an issue with page counters, then we had geocaching logos and other extraneous elements, and now we have font color, tomorrow or next year it might be something else that pops up that I hadn't thought about.  It is unreasonable to expect to cover every crazy possibility that someone might do which would make a waymark undesirable.   That is really the point in leaving it open for reviewers to use their judgment.

What I am beginning to do is add a more general disclaimer that would allow a reviewer to do just that - to exercise judgment in cases where something might not be addressed specifically by the description and posting instructions.  This seems common sense to me, but if it has to be written out, then I'll do it.  This is just going to take me awhile since I have quite a few categories where I'm leader now.  Well, it's a start anyway.

I come late to this, but here is my 2c worth. First, I am surprised to read about this. I believe that the category officers should have the final say, and that gs should only intervene in face of major transgressions. As for disclaimers and guidelines, I am all for improvement, but I am also for simplicity and comprehensibility. I would first like to see the gs guidelines for officers and when gs can intervene. Thanks to SQ for bringing this issue up.

In addition, there are people who are color limited or color blind.

OK, just add to the category requirements that the bulk of the long description text must be black.

Take care,
Outspoken1

My favorite was someone submitted a waymark with yellow text  and I declined it.  I got an email saying I should not have declined it from the waymarker... hmmm I wonder why.  I will decline any waymark with yellow text.

It took me awhile just to be able to read what was in that yellow text. Not kidding!
I get very frustrated when I can't read text (like the very faint type when you enter a waymark search, and papers that teachers send home with black ink on dark purple paper).
Yellow text in a waymark would be extremely difficult for me to read without copying and pasting and changing the color.

max and 99:

It took me awhile just to be able to read what was in that yellow text. Not kidding!
I get very frustrated when I can't read text (like the very faint type when you enter a waymark search, and papers that teachers send home with black ink on dark purple paper).
Yellow text in a waymark would be extremely difficult for me to read without copying and pasting and changing the color.

Just highlight the text and you can read it but that should not be necessary.  I view waymarks with excessive formatting for no apparent reason as just someone playing around with the new found html "skills" and not understanding when they should use them.  It is common trait with new developers in software development trying to use a new "skill" when it should not be used.

Another problem with using fancy text is the confusion the html tags can cause some times with some browsers

Well, as I've said, the particular issue of font color is not the point.  The twin issue is - Guidelines for volunteers in reviewing waymarks (are we bound be the "letter of the law" or can we exercise our good judgment as to a waymark's acceptability) and what are Groundspeak's policy for intervening in the waymark review process.

In the final communication with Community Support, I've been told once again that I cannot decline these waymarks because of font color.  I'm bumping the issue up, since it has serious implications for the integrity of the entire waymark review process.

silverquill:

In the final communication with Community Support, I've been told once again that I cannot decline these waymarks because of font color.  I'm bumping the issue up, since it has serious implications for the integrity of the entire waymark review process.

Lack of common sense is not exclusive from wayamark submitters. As far as i remember, there are no writen rules about this (wich remembers me a conversation i had about some declined waymarks a few years ago. It was a sort of tabble tenis game untill Jeremy intervened too say something like this "it´s not writen in the category guidelines but se say it´s not alllowed so "it´s not allowed" end of story.), but, the fact that there are no rules will not mean that GS don´t impose his point of view.
As for me, i will continue to review Wm´s as i been doing so far. If i can´t read the text i will probably declined it as i have declined every waymarkl that doesn´t have at least an English version (and don´t tell me i can translate it because i´ll write you some words in Portuguese that i doubt google can translate correctly).
Once again, common sense is needed in both sides. IMHO, the best way is to envolve both sides (reviewers and GS) and define some guidelines accepted by both. We are volunteers, we like the game, but, on the day i don´t enjoy doing this i´m out and GS will have to findo someone to do the job or use a Lackey. This seems to be the problem with absent leaders and officers. Think about it.

I think it's time to calm down. Silverquill is completely right with his feelings but this is not likely to happen again in the near future.

The statement from Community Support was very unfortunate; this is not what I hoped for. But in the end this was a single incident and - as far as I know - GS has not overruled any reviewer's decision before and very likely they will never; they just stated they might...

Basically nothing has changed. Let's go for the kind of waymarks we want to see.

keep on keep'in on

silverquill:

The twin issue is - Guidelines for volunteers in reviewing waymarks (are we bound be the "letter of the law" or can we exercise our good judgment as to a waymark's acceptability) and what are Groundspeak's policy for intervening in the waymark review process.

Hi,
imho it will be a good thing to have guidelines for volunteers in reviewing waymarks. I hasn't to be a long story. Brief and concise.
Regards.
lumbricus

I agree it would be good to have guidelines, so perhaps we could start kicking a few ideas around? Short and concise sounds good to me.

Ok, to start the ball rolling: a. min of 2 photos, and the photos must clearly show what they are intended to show. Some categories specify this, some don't, but I believe that few, if any waymarks can slide by with only one pic. One an overall photo, the other a closeup, plus, as many more as needed to visually describe the waymark. b. A full geographic description in the title. This to include the city and country, the state/province also if needed to clarify. My thinking is that the inclusion of the country in the title allows for a quick identification of the location of the waymark. Most people add this, but some don't. c. Detailed Description. This should be sufficient to create a 'word picture', from which a reader can grasp what is being waymarked. ?

I personally don't see it as being any different than reviewing a geocache. Reviewers can't tell people what font color they can use on their cache pages, so why should it be any different with waymarks?

ambrosia:

I personally don't see it as being any different than reviewing a geocache. Reviewers can't tell people what font color they can use on their cache pages, so why should it be any different with waymarks?

Geocache reviewer can't judge quality at all, a person reviewing waymarks can judge quality.  That is the difference.