Groundspeak Portal

The purpose of this thread is to unfortunately bring to light the concepts created to intentionally make Waymarking look badly.

I for one am quite proud of how Waymarking has stayed very open minded and cooperative.  Rarely have I seen anything competative or condescending but it seems that the time has come where a category has been proposed to mock Waymarking.  I won't stand for it, and neither should you as we are all decent people that work hard to keep Waymarking enjoyable.

So with that in mind, this category idea MUST die in Peer Review.

http://www.waymarking.com/cat/peer_review_vote.aspx?f=1&guid=be248311-a6f8-4849-8879-d25517148c99

You should be ashamed of yourselves.  Nothing but the actions of childish people!

The fine individuals who are the officers of the group proposing this inappropriate category are:

thebisch - leader
lizosu
GaCacheCows

I have to admit I did chuckle before hitting the Nay button.  I guess this really provides the rationale behind the Groundspeak "veto" in the voting process. 

Come on guys this is a joke. But it does bring to light the fact that we need to sit back and be more selective in what we put on the site. I admit I am as guilty or more quilty than most but I fear we are letting things get out of hand.

I had the category removed this morning because it was vulgar. Obviously you all would have voted against it but I felt it was offensive enough to not be allowed the usual process. Thanks to the people who notified me directly.

A category like this would've never passed. I find it satirical. Wasnt there a threat about lame categories. They made a lame category. It was lacking in substance, too prevelant and rather useless and silly. All things that make a bad category. If they had named the category "Places I sat and rested in the woods" it would've been as bad.

I thought Waymarking was interesting when it was things like "Airplane Crashes" and "Waterfalls"... but it has since degenerated into "McDonald's Locations", and "Take-Out Menus".  I have called "Places I've Peed in the Woods" waymarks for quite sometime now.  I will continue to call them "Waymarks" with my friends.  It's unfortunate that I, along with my other geocaching friends, can't play the game online.

Yes, this was satire.  This category did exactly as it was intended, it brought some attention to the fact that Waymarking is littered with categories that really have no place on Waymarking.com.  This is exactly why I miss the "Virtual" Cache on Geocaching.  At least *most* of those took me someplace interesting... not something I could see on every street in Anytown USA.

What I find particularly interesting is that the OP talks about being open minded and cooperative, and yet he or she doesn't show that same open-mindedness in this post.  You should KILL the category simply because it's not the way he plays.  I am not ashamed of myself.  You play your way, I'll play mine.

thebisch:

I thought Waymarking was interesting when it was things like "Airplane Crashes" and "Waterfalls"... but it has since degenerated into "McDonald's Locations", and "Take-Out Menus".  I have called "Places I've Peed in the Woods" waymarks for quite sometime now.  I will continue to call them "Waymarks" with my friends.  It's unfortunate that I, along with my other geocaching friends, can't play the game online.

Yes, this was satire.  This category did exactly as it was intended, it brought some attention to the fact that Waymarking is littered with categories that really have no place on Waymarking.com.  This is exactly why I miss the "Virtual" Cache on Geocaching.  At least *most* of those took me someplace interesting... not something I could see on every street in Anytown USA.

What I find particularly interesting is that the OP talks about being open minded and cooperative, and yet he or she doesn't show that same open-mindedness in this post.  You should KILL the category simply because it's not the way he plays.  I am not ashamed of myself.  You play your way, I'll play mine.

As a geocacher, do you like every geocache out there? Many people dont like micros, but people keep making them, and people keep finding them. The same can be said about waymarking. Some people like one sort, others another. No one's forced to get a McDonalds waymark, just like someone's not forced to get a lamppost geocache.

thebisch:

I thought Waymarking was interesting when it was things like "Airplane Crashes" and "Waterfalls"... but it has since degenerated into "McDonald's Locations", and "Take-Out Menus".  I have called "Places I've Peed in the Woods" waymarks for quite sometime now.  I will continue to call them "Waymarks" with my friends.  It's unfortunate that I, along with my other geocaching friends, can't play the game online.

Yes, this was satire.  This category did exactly as it was intended, it brought some attention to the fact that Waymarking is littered with categories that really have no place on Waymarking.com.  This is exactly why I miss the "Virtual" Cache on Geocaching.  At least *most* of those took me someplace interesting... not something I could see on every street in Anytown USA.

What I find particularly interesting is that the OP talks about being open minded and cooperative, and yet he or she doesn't show that same open-mindedness in this post.  You should KILL the category simply because it's not the way he plays.  I am not ashamed of myself.  You play your way, I'll play mine.

As a geocacher, do you like every geocache out there? Many people dont like micros, but people keep making them, and people keep finding them. The same can be said about waymarking. Some people like one sort, others another. No one's forced to get a McDonalds waymark, just like someone's not forced to get a lamppost geocache.

thebisch:

I thought ......

Don't worry it is just satire.  We have this button in waymarking. I use it you should too. The categories you cite that you found interesting are still there along with several others that are wonderful as well. Ignore the rest. Solved.

Most geocachers are deluded into believing that most Virtuals were great.  They aren't.  Many people forget how Virtuals really went ... and humans in general tend to create bonds to the past that are not realistic.  Kids today are rude, and we would never have acted that way when we were young... right.

 

I might not have been a Volunteer Groundspeak Reviewer during the time of Virtuals, but I've seen my fair share of the ones that never got published now that I am.  They would make great Waymarks today, but in the days of Virtuals they were exactly what I call them now... mundane.  I happen to like mundane.

 

People love Virtuals because they are rare.

 

You say that people aren't making interesting categories anymore, yet I proposed two historical style ideas that help educate people on their surroundings and not one person has joined either.

You say that you have enjoyed some of the catagories available but are seeing a landslide into the mundane, yet instead of crafting something that you feel would improve Waymarking you decided to be insulting.    And yes, I saw stats on the officers BEFORE I posted my forum entry.  If my response was not the reaction you expected, you have misjudged how much we enjoy our game.

 

Everyone is welcome to contribute to Waymarking, but please do so in a constructive and positive way.  To coin a phrase... Don't pee in our pool

BQ

I have to agree with BQ. I've done some virtuals that really werent special. They were just plaques were you hate to answer the questions. The answering was the fun part, not the place itself. I once did a virtual of a historical figure statue. The fun was getting the answer. That statue is a waymark too, and I wouldnt go out of my way to visit it.

 

Edit: Meh, nevermind.  It's already been said.

TheBeanTeam:

thebisch:

I thought ......

Don't worry it is just satire. 

Cute. :)

TheBeanTeam:

We have this button in waymarking. I use it you should too. The categories you cite that you found interesting are still there along with several others that are wonderful as well. Ignore the rest. Solved.

I tried to start that, the problem is that there is soooo much crap in Waymarking, that it would be easier for me to have a "Follow" button so I could find the categories I'd be interested in.... I'd probably ignore like 90% of the Waymarking site.

Excuse me while I organize your post for you...

the blue quasar:

Most geocachers are deluded into believing that most Virtuals were great.  They aren't.  Many people forget how Virtuals really went ... and humans in general tend to create bonds to the past that are not realistic.  I might not have been a Volunteer Groundspeak Reviewer during the time of Virtuals, but I've seen my fair share of the ones that never got published now that I am.  They would make great Waymarks today, but in the days of Virtuals they were exactly what I call them now... mundane.

I never said *all* Virtuals took me someplace interesting, I said *most*.  The virtuals that I have found have taken me to places I might otherwise have not made it to on some vacations I've been on.  The key that you hit on in your comment is that you've seen virtuals that never got published.  Hmm, they never got published because they were, in your own words, mundane... and these would make great Waymarks.

Wonderful, places that were not worthy of a Virtual cache distinction are worthy Waymarks.  That is exactly what I believe is wrong with Waymarking.

the blue quasar:

People love Virtuals because they are rare.

Maybe.  But I love Virtuals because they take usually me to interesting/historic/beautiful sites.

the blue quasar:

You say that people aren't making interesting categories anymore, yet I proposed two historical style ideas that help educate people on their surroundings and not one person has joined either.

Yet another problem with Waymarking.  How am I supposed to know about new proposed categories?  Read the forums?  HA!  I have this thing called a job, I hardly have enough time to get out and enjoy my other hobbies and now you want me to read the forums?  No.

the blue quasar:

You say that you have enjoyed some of the catagories available but are seeing a landslide into the mundane, yet instead of crafting something that you feel would improve Waymarking you decided to be insulting.  

Again, with this thing we call work, I don't have the time or inclination to attempt to clean up Waymarking all by myself.  I'd have to propose several hundred categories to make up for the boring categories that are already here.

the blue quasar:

And yes, I saw stats on the officers BEFORE I posted my forum entry.   

What does this have to do with anything?

the blue quasar:

Kids today are rude, and we would never have acted that way when we were young... right.   

Who said anything any different?

<thebisch> skrev i en meddelelse news:14683@portal.groundspeak.com...

I tried to start that, the problem is that there is soooo much crap in Waymarking, that it would be easier for me to have a "Follow" button so I could find the categories I'd be interested in.... I'd probably ignore like 90% of the Waymarking site.

TheBeanTeam:

thebisch:

I thought ......

Don't worry it is just satire.  We have this button in waymarking. I use it you should too. The categories you cite that you found interesting are still there along with several others that are wonderful as well. Ignore the rest. Solved.

Does seem to be that people often forget this feature when discussing this topic.  Here's a somewhat related anectdote.

When the watertowers category came out I thought "oh how boring" and put it on my ignore list.  When I moved to France I was reminded of a very interesting water tower near Charles de Gaulle airport and I thought about waymarking it.  But I couldn't find watertowers in the category listing so I thought "well maybe I dreamt that their was a watertower category" or " maybe it didn't pass peer review".  Then I was playing with the site and I guess I listed my ignore list and found back the category.  I recently ran into a beautiful and historic old watertower in Colmar France that allowed me to get this icon.  Another example of how Waymarking can change the way you view certain things. 

Food for thought.

TheBeanTeam:

thebisch:

I thought ......

Don't worry it is just satire.  We have this button in waymarking. I use it you should too. The categories you cite that you found interesting are still there along with several others that are wonderful as well. Ignore the rest. Solved.

Does seem to be that people often forget this feature when discussing this topic.  Here's a somewhat related anectdote.

When the watertowers category came out I thought "oh how boring" and put it on my ignore list.  When I moved to France I was reminded of a very interesting water tower near Charles de Gaulle airport and I thought about waymarking it.  But I couldn't find watertowers in the category listing so I thought "well maybe I dreamt that their was a watertower category" or " maybe it didn't pass peer review".  Then I was playing with the site and I guess I listed my ignore list and found back the category.  I recently ran into a beautiful and historic old watertower in Colmar France that allowed me to get this icon.  Another example of how Waymarking can change the way you view certain things. 

Food for thought.

thebisch:

Excuse me while I organize your post for you...

the blue quasar:

Most geocachers are deluded into believing that most Virtuals were great.  They aren't.  Many people forget how Virtuals really went ... and humans in general tend to create bonds to the past that are not realistic.  I might not have been a Volunteer Groundspeak Reviewer during the time of Virtuals, but I've seen my fair share of the ones that never got published now that I am.  They would make great Waymarks today, but in the days of Virtuals they were exactly what I call them now... mundane.

I never said *all* Virtuals took me someplace interesting, I said *most*.  The virtuals that I have found have taken me to places I might otherwise have not made it to on some vacations I've been on.  The key that you hit on in your comment is that you've seen virtuals that never got published.  Hmm, they never got published because they were, in your own words, mundane... and these would make great Waymarks.

Wonderful, places that were not worthy of a Virtual cache distinction are worthy Waymarks.  That is exactly what I believe is wrong with Waymarking.

Obviously you don't remember when Virtuals were viewed as the scum of Geocaching, and those that actually  sought them were viewed as something less than real Geocachers.  Oh how history has a way of  reforming itself.  Yes there are mundane categories, and many of us dislike them.  In fact the OP is also the OP of another thread in the forums A plea for Categories that have substance and value to the Visitor .  Maybe you should take a look at what he says about categories instead of attacking him

the blue quasar:

People love Virtuals because they are rare.

thebisch:

Maybe.  But I love Virtuals because they take usually me to interesting/historic/beautiful sites.

I think if you looked around you would find many more interesting/historic/beautiful sites listed as waymarks than were ever listed as virtual caches.  Take the time to identify your favorite categories and mark them as your favorites.  As you are doing this ignore those categories that you find no interest in.

When I look at the newest categories (those on the first page) I find 13 that I think fall into the interesting/historic/beautiful sites and 12 that don't.  I figure if I get half I am doing good, I bet if you looked at the last caches approved it would be far less than half that were in interesting/historic/beautiful sites

the blue quasar:

You say that people aren't making interesting categories anymore, yet I proposed two historical style ideas that help educate people on their surroundings and not one person has joined either.

thebisch:

Yet another problem with Waymarking.  How am I supposed to know about new proposed categories?  Read the forums?  HA!  I have this thing called a job, I hardly have enough time to get out and enjoy my other hobbies and now you want me to read the forums?  No.

If you don't wish to read the forums that is fine, to see what the newest approved categories  are click the Newest Categories link on the Waymarking front page.  To see what categories may be upcoming click on the Newest Groups.

the blue quasar:

You say that you have enjoyed some of the catagories available but are seeing a landslide into the mundane, yet instead of crafting something that you feel would improve Waymarking you decided to be insulting.  

thebisch:

Again, with this thing we call work, I don't have the time or inclination to attempt to clean up Waymarking all by myself.  I'd have to propose several hundred categories to make up for the boring categories that are already here.

How many categories have you vote NO.  There is a fairly vocal group of waymarkers who don't really like the mundane categories however they pass.  There are many reasons many won't vote no because they don't want to hurt someones feelings, or they don't really care one way or the other.  If you don't like categories being approved vote NO and follow up with an interesting category of your own

the blue quasar:

And yes, I saw stats on the officers BEFORE I posted my forum entry.   

thebisch:

What does this have to do with anything?

It means you have little experience with Waymarking yet you chose to come in and insult the community whether it was intended as satire or a joke it was insulting.  Waymarking is a community based activity and is quite laidback, and helpful and welcoming to newcomers who want to learn and constructively contribute to the community.   However if someone chooses to insult the community they should not expect a warm welcome just as you would not warmly welcome someone to your home that insulted you.

If a category had to please every waymarker, there'd be no categories.

If you had the time to create the category that you did AND the time to post in the forums, then you had the time to craft a category that would have been a benefit to Waymarking.  By your own words, a majority lack any interest to you so anything you make would be improving the overall quality in here.

Your approach to solving what in your view is a flaw in Waymarking is akin to walking into a sports bar and announcing in a loud voice that all of the local teams suck, especially if you don't even like sports.

If you are serious, then think about a topic that you do like and would like to see other locations from around the world and hopefully learn about them.  There are plenty of people in here that would help you get started with a category if you need help.

 

Think about the Virtuals that you do enjoy, what was it about them that you liked?  Is there a way to classify that in a way that doesn't exist here yet?  That makes for a good category, because you really are interested then.

We really are here to help, cause we get to share in the fun too.

BQ

thebisch:

Excuse me while I organize your post for you...

the blue quasar:

Most geocachers are deluded into believing that most Virtuals were great.  They aren't.  Many people forget how Virtuals really went ... and humans in general tend to create bonds to the past that are not realistic.  I might not have been a Volunteer Groundspeak Reviewer during the time of Virtuals, but I've seen my fair share of the ones that never got published now that I am.  They would make great Waymarks today, but in the days of Virtuals they were exactly what I call them now... mundane.

I never said *all* Virtuals took me someplace interesting, I said *most*.  The virtuals that I have found have taken me to places I might otherwise have not made it to on some vacations I've been on.  The key that you hit on in your comment is that you've seen virtuals that never got published.  Hmm, they never got published because they were, in your own words, mundane... and these would make great Waymarks.

Wonderful, places that were not worthy of a Virtual cache distinction are worthy Waymarks.  That is exactly what I believe is wrong with Waymarking.

Labyrinths, Japanese Gardens, Oddball Sculptures, Butterfly Houses, Historical Markers for every state and other regions.  Great virtuals, great waymarks. 

the blue quasar:

People love Virtuals because they are rare.

Maybe.  But I love Virtuals because they take usually me to interesting/historic/beautiful sites.

See above.  And by the way, if you hate butteflies, you never have to worry about coming across a butterfly waymark, even in your searches.  How's that work in geocaching?

the blue quasar:

You say that people aren't making interesting categories anymore, yet I proposed two historical style ideas that help educate people on their surroundings and not one person has joined either.

Yet another problem with Waymarking.  How am I supposed to know about new proposed categories?  Read the forums?  HA!  I have this thing called a job, I hardly have enough time to get out and enjoy my other hobbies and now you want me to read the forums?  No.

Here's the thing: if you see something you'd like to waymark, you search for a few key words that would fit.  You'll likely find at least one, and then you post it.  If those few mouse clicks are too much (I know, you work) just search your home coordinates like you do for geocaches and log a visit to the ones that are already listed.  Wow, sounds like virtuals!

the blue quasar:

You say that you have enjoyed some of the catagories available but are seeing a landslide into the mundane, yet instead of crafting something that you feel would improve Waymarking you decided to be insulting.  

Again, with this thing we call work, I don't have the time or inclination to attempt to clean up Waymarking all by myself.

Time to troll, though, eh?

I'd have to propose several hundred categories to make up for the boring categories that are already here

See above.  Those are the categories that came up when I roled my mouse across the category grid.  I didn't list "Vasco de Gama" because I don't know what that would be, but I'm guessing it's historical.  These are the sort of category that have finally drawn me into this.  I guarantee there is a smaller percentage of waymarks worth ignoring than of parking lot micro caches worth ignoring.

Look, I agree this doesn't fulfill everything that Virtuals did.  This is more like locationless.  In fact it's exactly like locationless, except that the format of the site makes sense.  Searching makes sense, not tying a category to irrelevant coordinates makes sense, being able to see if a location has already been added amkes sense, and being able to log a visit even if it has makes sense.

thebisch:

Excuse me while I organize your post for you...

the blue quasar:

Most geocachers are deluded into believing that most Virtuals were great.  They aren't.  Many people forget how Virtuals really went ... and humans in general tend to create bonds to the past that are not realistic.  I might not have been a Volunteer Groundspeak Reviewer during the time of V