Groundspeak Portal

Another waymarker and I have submitted the same waymark at the same time to the same category. The submissions are next to each other in the reviewers queue probably, because the same reviewer approved them both in the same category for the same item. They appeared one above the other on category page. So there is an issue with the reviewer, but that is not my question. (I pointed out the double entry to reviewer.)

My point is no site proximity alarm went off because neither was approved nor publicly visible. Is there some way to warn posters about nearby waymarks in same category  in the review queue?

Although my submission was correct it had been submitted second. The first one approved, and needed correcting. Mine was archived which I'm fine with. I had spent  good deal of time on it, as Opionate knows I do for all my waymarks.

A proximity alarm for nearby submissions in review queue would be good.

---
No longer the only waymarker in the county.

flipflopnick:

Another waymarker and I have submitted the same waymark at the same time to the same category. The submissions are next to each other in the reviewers queue probably, because the same reviewer approved them both in the same category for the same item. They appeared one above the other on category page. So there is an issue with the reviewer, but that is not my question. (I pointed out the double entry to reviewer.)

My point is no site proximity alarm went off because neither was approved nor publicly visible. Is there some way to warn posters about nearby waymarks in same category  in the review queue?

Although my submission was correct it had been submitted second. The first one approved, and needed correcting. Mine was archived which I'm fine with. I had spent  good deal of time on it, as Opionate knows I do for all my waymarks.

A proximity alarm for nearby submissions in review queue would be good.

---
No longer the only waymarker in the county.

The site will warn if there is another waymark in proximity in the same category on the first save as long as coordinates are entered at that time.  If the coordinates are not entered or are entered incorrectly then there will not be a warning.  There is not a warning at the time of submission only when waymark is first entered. 

If you find a duplicate just go to the later submitted waymark and re-evaluate it and tell the person who submitted it that it is a duplicate. 

The same thing happened to me and Jagman on a Dockside dining waymark.

I always heard that Great Minds think alike, and its always fun to see the other Great Minds around.

globetrotters.us:

The same thing happened to me and Jagman on a Dockside dining waymark.

I always heard that Great Minds think alike, and its always fun to see the other Great Minds around.

I recall this one having them both in my review queue simultaneously...what it had to come down to was who submitted first for a pretty decent waymark to a new category.

Kind of like racing for a 'first to find', if you are into that.

KE

Only had this once, but the rule is or should be that the lower WM# gets the spot.  If there is a problem with the lower WM# it should be held to resolve the issue and the higher WM# should be told that there is another entry for the same location pending an update.

 

But if there is no way to know that there are two in the queue at the same time, which can easily happen if people use different names, then it can be tough to do the right thing.

 

There should be a way to get the "proximity warning" to go off even for unpublished Waymarks.

 

BQ

the blue quasar:

There should be a way to get the "proximity warning" to go off even for unpublished Waymarks.

 

That would be ideal, because that happens more frequently than I would have suspected.  I just don't know if it is possible from a programiming standpoint.  If it is, it is a much needed feature.  I've had this situation occur from time to time, and I've had it happen to waymarks I've submitted.  It's always a tough call.

the blue quasar:

Only had this once, but the rule is or should be that the lower WM# gets the spot.  If there is a problem with the lower WM# it should be held to resolve the issue and the higher WM# should be told that there is another entry for the same location pending an update.

I disagree. If two waymarks are in the review queue for the same waymark, the one submitted for review 1st should have precedence. You should be able to tell which one one was 1st by which email you received 1st to review. Someone could have created it a LONG time ago, and someone else submitted it just before they did. If you don't get it approved 1st, then you snooze you lose.

ggmorton:

the blue quasar:

Only had this once, but the rule is or should be that the lower WM# gets the spot.  If there is a problem with the lower WM# it should be held to resolve the issue and the higher WM# should be told that there is another entry for the same location pending an update.

I disagree. If two waymarks are in the review queue for the same waymark, the one submitted for review 1st should have precedence. You should be able to tell which one one was 1st by which email you received 1st to review. Someone could have created it a LONG time ago, and someone else submitted it just before they did. If you don't get it approved 1st, then you snooze you lose.

 

The reverse arguement holds true as well.  They could have sent it in and needed to return to get more info, they could be doing extensive research on the site and of course there could be any other number of reasons.

Since we are talking about TWO or More in the Review Queue AT THE SAME time, then both must be ready for review.  The WM number is automatically generated at the time of creation, not when it is submitted.  That is key to knowing who was actually first.  Using sorting methods based on when emails are received or alphabetical lists in the overall queue may cause problems.  To me, WM# is the only way to say "I'm first!"

But of course, if the older one is not in the Queue.. then YUP.. Snooze = Lose

BQ

the blue quasar:

The reverse arguement holds true as well.  They could have sent it in and needed to return to get more info, they could be doing extensive research on the site and of course there could be any other number of reasons.

Since we are talking about TWO or More in the Review Queue AT THE SAME time, then both must be ready for review.  The WM number is automatically generated at the time of creation, not when it is submitted.  That is key to knowing who was actually first.  Using sorting methods based on when emails are received or alphabetical lists in the overall queue may cause problems.  To me, WM# is the only way to say "I'm first!"

But of course, if the older one is not in the Queue.. then YUP.. Snooze = Lose

BQ

Good reason to keep your review queue short and don't let waymarks languish there long.  As far as the waymark number only time this might be a problem is if someone does preliminary work on waymarks prior to going on vacation (you know who you are )  I am never that far ahead to do that.

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

The reverse arguement holds true as well.  They could have sent it in and needed to return to get more info, they could be doing extensive research on the site and of course there could be any other number of reasons.

Since we are talking about TWO or More in the Review Queue AT THE SAME time, then both must be ready for review.  The WM number is automatically generated at the time of creation, not when it is submitted.  That is key to knowing who was actually first.  Using sorting methods based on when emails are received or alphabetical lists in the overall queue may cause problems.  To me, WM# is the only way to say "I'm first!"

But of course, if the older one is not in the Queue.. then YUP.. Snooze = Lose

BQ

Good reason to keep your review queue short and don't let waymarks languish there long.  As far as the waymark number only time this might be a problem is if someone does preliminary work on waymarks prior to going on vacation (you know who you are )  I am never that far ahead to do that.

It sounds to me like we need one of them new fangled enhancements to sort by submission time/date instead of by creation time/date.

the blue quasar:

The reverse arguement holds true as well.  They could have sent it in and needed to return to get more info, they could be doing extensive research on the site and of course there could be any other number of reasons.

Since we are talking about TWO or More in the Review Queue AT THE SAME time, then both must be ready for review.  The WM number is automatically generated at the time of creation, not when it is submitted.  That is key to knowing who was actually first.  Using sorting methods based on when emails are received or alphabetical lists in the overall queue may cause problems.  To me, WM# is the only way to say "I'm first!"

But of course, if the older one is not in the Queue.. then YUP.. Snooze = Lose

BQ

My point is that which ever one was submitted for review 1st should have precedence. I know that both of them were in the review queue at the same time, and that means each waymark creator thinks they are ready to be approved. You would have to accept the one that was submitted for review 1st. As far as I know you only get this information via email. Which ever email you received 1st of those two waymarks would have precedence.

Some people create placeholder waymarks before they actually go and waymark an item. They then submit it later (or much later). If someone waymarked the same location before the original guy submitted his and both were in the queue, you should review the 1st one submitted (in this case the 2nd guy to waymark it).

Am I making any sense here? Maybe I am not conveying my point adequately.

ggmorton:

My point is that which ever one was submitted for review 1st should have precedence. I know that both of them were in the review queue at the same time, and that means each waymark creator thinks they are ready to be approved. You would have to accept the one that was submitted for review 1st. As far as I know you only get this information via email. Which ever email you received 1st of those two waymarks would have precedence.

Some people create placeholder waymarks before they actually go and waymark an item. They then submit it later (or much later). If someone waymarked the same location before the original guy submitted his and both were in the queue, you should review the 1st one submitted (in this case the 2nd guy to waymark it).

Am I making any sense here? Maybe I am not conveying my point adequately.

I think you're making plenty of sense. But then I've already read what Hikenutty wrote in the Feature Request thread here.

Sorry BQ, not to 'pile-on' here, but my opinion is that the first one to get the job done and turn in the work gets first chance.  If it doesn't pass review, reject it and the second one submitted gets a chance.  No place holders.  The first one to get the job done right wins.  If it's a small error like a typo or bad link I'd still approve it and ask the waymarker to fix it (like I do now).  If the waymark doesn't meet the category requirements, reject it and move on.

There are too many ways around the lowest waymark. preliminary work or recycling older rejected waymarks, etc.

s5280ft:

Sorry BQ, not to 'pile-on' here, but my opinion is that the first one to get the job done and turn in the work gets first chance.  If it doesn't pass review, reject it and the second one submitted gets a chance.  No place holders.  The first one to get the job done right wins.  If it's a small error like a typo or bad link I'd still approve it and ask the waymarker to fix it (like I do now).  If the waymark doesn't meet the category requirements, reject it and move on.

There are too many ways around the lowest waymark. preliminary work or recycling older rejected waymarks, etc.

 

No need to apologize... Your idea has many merits to it.  In another thread I mentioned "First In First Out" and I totally agree with that approach.  Besides, there never would be debate if we all agreed.

My only concern is knowing which one is truly first.  Since I don't know for sure how the review queue is sorted then I would want a ruling on that.  I know the items are grouped by Category, I'm just not sure how the items in the same category are sorted for reviewing.

BQ

Thanks, 0ccam!  I was wondering where in the heck my reply went.  Ended up in a different thread.  

Here was my point - I had "pre-waymarked" several waymarks with generic info before going on a road trip (and by several I mean about 75).  They were well known tourist spots that I knew we'd be visiting and I figured I'd get a jump on the after-vacation posting.  This was 3 months out before I actually went and gathered the info, pics, and coordinates.  Then when I returned I added the info and submitted.  It would be unfair to a person who gets all of this info 2 months before I manage to get the info and yet, they aren't allowed to submit it because my "waymark" has been created.

 

Thanks, 0ccam!  I was wondering where in the heck my reply went.  Ended up in a different thread.  

Here was my point - I had "pre-waymarked" several waymarks with generic info before going on a road trip (and by several I mean about 75).  They were well known tourist spots that I knew we'd be visiting and I figured I'd get a jump on the after-vacation posting.  This was 3 months out before I actually went and gathered the info, pics, and coordinates.  Then when I returned I added the info and submitted.  It would be unfair to a person who gets all of this info 2 months before I manage to get the info and yet, they aren't allowed to submit it because my "waymark" has been created.