Groundspeak Portal

To what end? Continuing to allow these to 'float along' adrift on a sea of "no cares"?

You said "what do you say???" I say "NO"...

If I appear insensitive it is because these people that are no longer making the effort are actually putting a lot of active players out.

To take a cue from Geocaching...

As the category owner, you are also responsible for checking your category periodically by logging in, and especially when someone reports a new submission. You or another officer should have addressed any submission within 72 hours. In the event that a category is not being properly maintained, or has been placed on probation for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the category.

Do we need Waymarking Guidelines ? Not really... Do we need time lines for suitable actions to be taken? You betcha!

Category Officers are very much like Geocaching Reviewers... and for those that play that game, imagine if suddenly a local reviewer stopped without any word to anyone.... right, Groundspeak would step in and reassign.

BQ

the blue quasar:

To what end? Continuing to allow these to 'float along' adrift on a sea of "no cares"? You said "what do you say???" I say "NO"... If I appear insensitive it is because these people that are no longer making the effort are actually putting a lot of active players out. To take a cue from Geocaching... As the category owner, you are also responsible for checking your category periodically by logging in, and especially when someone reports a new submission. You or another officer should have addressed any submission within 72 hours. In the event that a category is not being properly maintained, or has been placed on probation for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the category. Do we need Waymarking Guidelines ? Not really... Do we need time lines for suitable actions to be taken? You betcha! Category Officers are very much like Geocaching Reviewers... and for those that play that game, imagine if suddenly a local reviewer stopped without any word to anyone.... right, Groundspeak would step in and reassign. BQ

Hey, I'm just floating ideas as far as how we can work around the schmoes. If that's how it's done with Geocaching, then you're right, that's how it should be done here. Does it require somebody to inform Groundspeak about any and all particular categories?

I'm sorry TF7, I'm a little cranky tonight. And is does annoy me a lot that there are many categories that need a trim.

In both games I have little-to-no sympathy for people that abandon their stuff. I have far more respect for those that quit and say "Not enjoying it, please take over" than what is happening now.... where we are left to solve this, apparently FOR them.

BQ

'Salright! You know me I got thick skin, I can take it. I know you ain't directing it toward me, and I certainly understand your frustration. There's a strong bunch here who just wish Waymarking to be everything it can be. We just need to be given the right tools.

the blue quasar:

I'm sorry TF7, I'm a little cranky tonight. And is does annoy me a lot that there are many categories that need a trim. In both games I have little-to-no sympathy for people that abandon their stuff. I have far more respect for those that quit and say "Not enjoying it, please take over" than what is happening now.... where we are left to solve this, apparently FOR them. BQ

Yeah, I'm a little cranky tonight, too, and will probably get flack for something I've posted.

I have to agree with you here.  I understand that interests change, life happens, and all of the rest that may cause a person to drop out.  Some have done so, or at least greatly decreased their activity, but have handed off their responsiblities to others along the way.  This works as it should.

I don't think we should have to worry about offending someone.  If there are legitimate reasons why someone cannot devote the time and attention to fulfill commitments, then there should be no problem with finiding someone to take over those commitments, either temporarily or indefinitely.  So, if a category is "distressed" due to negligence, then we need make no apology for aggessive intervention.

Ultimately it will  be up to the Groundpeak authorities to draft the policy and implement a solution, but I hope this can be done sooner rather than later.  (It is already later, I think).  There are plenty of us willing to help.

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting).

The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories. They could approve in a pinch and shuffle officers. I've been on projects where someone important "Got hit by a truck". I would assume a well meaning family member would pass on the news, but perhaps the don't, and the only way you know is that they have quit logging on?

globetrotters.us:

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting). The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories.

That's a really good idea!

dopeyduck:

globetrotters.us:

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting). The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories.

That's a really good idea!

That's fine. But what if they go delinquent?

0ccam:

That's fine. But what if they go delinquent?

My thought would be to build redundency into the process. Perhaps each of the Department level approvers would be a backup for the others.

globetrotters.us:

0ccam:

That's fine. But what if they go delinquent?

My thought would be to build redundency into the process. Perhaps each of the Department level approvers would be a backup for the others.

It sounds like it would work well. I don't think there even has to be assigned departments, just a pool of monitors that can be on call for that specific issue.

- Elle

Let me run a problem I am having by you guys.    

 "Las Vegas Strip Benchmarks" Group Details

date created:

6/24/2007

Vegas Gamblers - Leader [view profile] status: call number: 1 last login: 10/28/2007

I joined because I have found over 50 of these benchmarks and wanted to be able to log the ones I found.  The leader is the only officer.  3 other waymarkers are members.  I have sent numerous emails to Vegas Gamblers about turning the group over to an active memeber and have gotten no response. Since he is the only officer we cant vote to remove him.  What actions do I have?  I know the lackeys have a lot of other worries so dont know if I should get them involved or not.  The other 2 members are active but have almost no waymarks found or listed so dont know how interested they are in managing the group.  How do I get this group moved forward??  Thanks for any comments that you guys have.  Jon  Blue J Wenatchee

blue j wenatchee:

Let me run a problem I am having by you guys.    

 "Las Vegas Strip Benchmarks" Group Details

date created:

6/24/2007

Vegas Gamblers - Leader [view profile] status: call number: 1 last login: 10/28/2007

I joined because I have found over 50 of these benchmarks and wanted to be able to log the ones I found.  The leader is the only officer.  3 other waymarkers are members.  I have sent numerous emails to Vegas Gamblers about turning the group over to an active memeber and have gotten no response. Since he is the only officer we cant vote to remove him.  What actions do I have?  I know the lackeys have a lot of other worries so dont know if I should get them involved or not.  The other 2 members are active but have almost no waymarks found or listed so dont know how interested they are in managing the group.  How do I get this group moved forward??  Thanks for any comments that you guys have.  Jon  Blue J Wenatchee

I think you can log these in the U.S benchmark category thus I don't know why a new category would be needed.  However if you determine that you want to have this move forward you can start a new group and recruit the members you need.

globetrotters.us:

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting).

The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories. They could approve in a pinch and shuffle officers. I've been on projects where someone important "Got hit by a truck". I would assume a well meaning family member would pass on the news, but perhaps the don't, and the only way you know is that they have quit logging on?

Sorry to be the lone negative opinion on this but it would be abused a lot. Some Officers would view this as "Meh, the directory officers will pick up the slack." and players would be constantly emailing them about listings that they feel have been sitting too long. To expect these directory officers to step up and review categories that they have no interest in is very unrealistic as they would not understand the scope as an invested Officer should.

This idea is far too prone to abuse and I fear would just escalate issues in the categories that already have issues. This opens up a lot of buck-passing.

BQ

the blue quasar:

Sorry to be the lone negative opinion on this but it would be abused a lot. Some Officers would view this as "Meh, the directory officers will pick up the slack." and players would be constantly emailing them about listings that they feel have been sitting too long. To expect these directory officers to step up and review categories that they have no interest in is very unrealistic as they would not understand the scope as an invested Officer should. This idea is far too prone to abuse and I fear would just escalate issues in the categories that already have issues. This opens up a lot of buck-passing. BQ

I think it would require the responsibilities to be well defined, in advance. For example, only get involved if no member has been involved in over x days, or if there is only one active group member left. I think also, the department level officers would need a separate logon, to avoid accidents or easy temptations.

It would seem that people leave waymarking and head back to geocaching or on to somewhere else and leave us behind...in some cases without cutting the ties and leaving a void when it comes to category management.

When BackBrakeBilly tried out waymarking they participated for bit got a few hundred waymarks and then moved on...they were good enough to send a note to officers as they backed out...the result an identification that an officer or two was needed...and recruited.

It would be great to find the right timeline for demoting an officer or leader - but it has to be more than logging on...it has to involve category management like waymark approvals.

KE

Would someone with a project management background take a stab at writing up a Problem Statement on this?

It would have a concise description of the Problem, Then the impacts of the problem. Then several different solutions, varying from  a manual "work around", to something completely automated.

I have found that when you present the Facts in the Language of Business, it's much easier to sell a solution.

globetrotters.us:

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting).

The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories. They could approve in a pinch and shuffle officers. I've been on projects where someone important "Got hit by a truck". I would assume a well meaning family member would pass on the news, but perhaps the don't, and the only way you know is that they have quit logging on?

Interesting thought.  BQ has already raised some potential issues, but it is at least worth the discussion.

The concept is not entirely unfamiliar as there are the volunteer reviewers on Geocaching.  These people not only review new listings, but police current listings with power to archive if necessary.  They also can work under anonymity.

I could see a problem with seeming to create some sort of elite corps that has these powers.  Although power always brings with it the potential for abuse, I think that is not the greatest danger.  I think it might be one of perception  -  that there is this group of privileged people who can control things.  This would especially be true if officers, and even group leaders, started to get demoted.  There could be some hard feelings.

Still, I don't think a totally automated solution is possible, or at least desireable, because one cannot totally eliminate the human factor.  So, I think something like this is might be necessary.  Someone, somewhere, has to make a decision and take action on these languishing categories.  Obviously, Groundpeak staff can''t fulfill this role.

I think that, at the very least, such "Department Reviewers" (or whatever) should have the ability to switch on open enrollment and to promote members to officer status.  That would allow the group management system already in place to work to cull out the deadwood and revive a category with new leadership.  But, I wouldn't be opposed to giving such a group the power to demote officers or group leaders as long as there are some clear guidelines in place for doing so.  This person could correspond with those wayward officers, leaders if necessary.

Of course, there is another question:  Would there be enough people willing to invest that kind of time and effort, to do this?  Or, to take the possible aggravation?  (I think these people would have to work under a login name different from their waymarking name to help avoid this being personal).

Just poking around to see what might work . . .

silverquill:

globetrotters.us:

Here is a thought... What if there were officers at the department level? These officers would have officer privledges in all categories below the department, but no category responsibility (ie voting).

The department officers responsibilities would be to address concerns of Abandoned categories. They could approve in a pinch and shuffle officers. I've been on projects where someone important "Got hit by a truck". I would assume a well meaning family member would pass on the news, but perhaps the don't, and the only way you know is that they have quit logging on?

Interesting thought.  BQ has already raised some potential issues, but it is at least worth the discussion.

The concept is not entirely unfamiliar as there are the volunteer reviewers on Geocaching.  These people not only review new listings, but police current listings with power to archive if necessary.  They also can work under anonymity.

I could see a problem with seeming to create some sort of elite corps that has these powers.  Although power always brings with it the potential for abuse, I think that is not the greatest danger.  I think it might be one of perception  -  that there is this group of privileged people who can control things.  This would especially be true if officers, and even group leaders, started to get demoted.  There could be some hard feelings.

Still, I don't think a totally automated solution is possible, or at least desireable, because one cannot totally eliminate the human factor.  So, I think something like this is might be necessary.  Someone, somewhere, has to make a decision and take action on these languishing categories.  Obviously, Groundpeak staff can''t fulfill this role.

I think that, at the very least, such "Department Reviewers" (or whatever) should have the ability to switch on open enrollment and to promote members to officer status.  That would allow the group management system already in place to work to cull out the deadwood and revive a category with new leadership.  But, I wouldn't be opposed to giving such a group the power to demote officers or group leaders as long as there are some clear guidelines in place for doing so.  This person could correspond with those wayward officers, leaders if necessary.

Of course, there is another question:  Would there be enough people willing to invest that kind of time and effort, to do this?  Or, to take the possible aggravation?  (I think these people would have to work under a login name different from their waymarking name to help avoid this being personal).

Just poking around to see what might work . . .

Sounds great, I got dibs on "Lamont Cranston". One a serious note, I think the open enrollment should be there for all categories. If you're running one (or several), there's no reason why anyone can't join in, you don't have to promote everyone, but it would be nice if a group has one poor bugger covering the category and could recriut the required help.

TeamFarkle7=Sounds great, I got dibs on "Lamont Cranston". One a serious note, I think the open enrollment should be there for all categories. If you're running one (or several), there's no reason why anyone can't join in, you don't have to promote everyone, but it would be nice if a group has one poor bugger covering the category and could recriut the required help.

 

Could Groundspeak automatically turn on the open enrollment after X number of days of majority of officers not logging on, or something to that nature. Meaning there would be an automated process. Or maybe officers could vote to turn open enrollment on. (Of course the voting wouldn't work when there is one person left in a non-functioning group)  Seems to me that there should be some sort of automatic demotion after x-amount of days. I think Silverquill had a good breakdown earlier in this thread.

Interesting

waymaster:

Interesting

Yes it is.

Last time we went through this a few years back with abandoned categories, people just offered to take over. But that was before Groups I think.

Maybe a good question is "How long are you willing to wait at a maximum for your Waymark to be reviewed by an Officer in any Group?"

Me... one week is the upper limit.

BQ

Oh hi waymaster & waywizard, thanks for joining in on this most frustrating of threads. As I'm sure you have read, these abandoned categories have been an annoyance for a while now.

BQ, I think a week is too long, IMHO. In a properly functioning group, it seems to me there's no reason why anyone should be waiting any longer than 4 days max.

I've noticed that most groups tend to start out with 3 officers, it being the minimum, and that tends to make things go quick and smoothly during category development process. But once it's up and running, it would be nice to see more groups promote more officers.

I know there's quite a few folks who are involved with many groups, and I've seen people quit the groups they're not strongly interested in, the main concern being all the email they recieve from all the submissions that come in as a result. One thing I do, when I've got a ton of email & I've the time to review is go to the queue and review what's there. Then I'll check my email and delete what I no longer need to see and if I feel like it, I'll check out what's been submitted and reviewed by my fellow officers. Or I delete all the email and simply go to recent waymarks if I'm feeling curious. For me, it seems a lot less daunting than going through all the email.

Anyway, back to the deadwood. We all agree it's there, the question is "Now what?"

team farkle 7:

I know there's quite a few folks who are involved with many groups, and I've seen people quit the groups they're not strongly interested in, the main concern being all the email they recieve from all the submissions that come in as a result. One thing I do, when I've got a ton of email & I've the time to review is go to the queue and review what's there. Then I'll check my email and delete what I no longer need to see and if I feel like it, I'll check out what's been submitted and reviewed by my fellow officers. Or I delete all the email and simply go to recent waymarks if I'm feeling curious. For me, it seems a lot less daunting than going through all the email.

Anyway, back to the deadwood. We all agree it's there, the question is "Now what?"

Yeah, "Now what?" 
Well, we can bat it around somemore, but I think it comes down to some sort of automated solution that will automatically demote inactive officers and leaders and put out an alert when categories fall into probation for lack of three active officers, or we have some sort of human review system in place, perhaps a combination of these.

Either solution will require direct intervention from Groundspeak people and some significant programming to implement whatever solution is settled on.

In regard to officers dropping out because of the high work load -- I can certainly understand.  Email volume shouldn't be an issue, unless one is on dial-up.  Actually, I never look at my email notifications; they are all filtered out into a folder where they sit for awhile until I delete them.  I just regularly check my review queue and work from there.  Still, when I'm looking at a couple of pages of waymarks to review, or someone has flooded one of the categories, it can be a little daunting.

A high volume category should have enough officers so that the reviews are spread out.  So, one can choose whatever level of activity one is comfortable with.  It's easy to get overextended, though.  So, now that you mention it, I think I'll promote a few more officers!

silverquill:

... I think I'll promote a few more officers!

I see too few officers as a problem. I just looked at NC Historical markers, and was thinking of joining but there are 13 in the group already. That's plenty. The problem is only 3 officers and 2 haven't been on in 7 months or more. There are 10 people in the group that are doing nothing (unless I'm mistaken about the responsibilities of regular members). Of course I can tell if they've been on recently since I'm not a member.

I don't mean to pick on this catagory, I see it in others too, it's just the one I looked at before coming to the forums.

Fatcat