Groundspeak Portal

I'm sure we can all point to some categories and wonder how they ever got approved through the peer review process.  But, several lately leave me wondering how effective the process really is.

I posted a waymark to a new category the other day, and found it had absolutely NOTHING in the "Posting Requirements" section, NOTHING in the requirements for posting visit logs, and NO variables, and about a one sentence description.  How that got through peer review, AND past the Groundspeak final check is bewildering to me.

Now I see that a category for Bear Statues has been approved.  When we already have a category for Figurative Sculptures, that makes this TOTALLY redundant.  All bear statues would be accepted here, I believe.  And there are many.  Or does has the redundancy requirement lost all meaning?  Are we going to slice and dice this so that we have categories for Deer Statues, Rabbit Statues, Wolf Statues, Horse Statues, Dog Statues, Elephant Statues, Giraffe Statues, Hedgehog Statues . . . .  shall I go on?

Yes, I know there is a category for Lion Statues and one for Insect Sculptures - which we've had for a long time, and one for Dinosaurs.  These all pre-date the Figurative Sculpture category, however, which is the point.  This is not about broad versus narrow categories, but about pulling out a small subset of an existing category just so someone can have a new category.

If I were a new waymarking, I would be confused crazy trying to figure out where to submit some of my waymarks.  Still am sometimes, for that matter.

A lot of categories can be subdivided into smaller ones, but is this the way we should be going in waymarking?  How about taking Musician Statues and having ones for Rock Musicians, Classical Musicians, Country Western Musicians, etc. -- IN ADDITION to the already existing one?

Okay, I know this is a bit of a rant, but I think it is an issue that should be raised.  Vent your disagreement, but please don't call me names . . .  okay?

I think that peer review is a good attempt at direct democracy.  The drawback with direct democracy is that it requires an informed electorate.  With 924 categories and counting, it's hard, if not impossible, to keep all of them in your head.  It also makes it hard for new waymarkers to suggest good categories.  (As a new waymarker, I am waiting to make suggestions for categories.  I obivously have no problem offering oppinons.)

One idea is to introduce an accreditation process similar to what colleges have to go through.  Every five years, our college has to get reaccredited.  That means review all of the programs to make sure they fit regional norms.  One of the terms of reaccrediation is a "quality enhancement plan" to improve education for all students.

As far as an application for waymarking, we could try to set up a category accrediation board and review categories every year or two.  We could try to elimiate redundant categories, and suggest changes to improve categories.  I know that this would make more work for groups, but I think that is a good thing.  If you had to rewrite a category every year, you would make sure to do a good job in the first place.  Also, you would only suggest a category if you were really sure it would be worth the work.

This is, of course, just a suggestion.

Now, to call silverquill names.  You are a scholar and a gentleman.  Take that!

since the subject was breached, here's my 2 cents:

i stopped voting (on new categories) long ago. there was too much crap to vote on and it seemed as if people were doing what they wanted anyway.

it seems as if my vote wouldnt have mattered anyway now would it? the advice i did give when voting was taken into consideration by some.

i agree that we need some sort of governing board. caching has reviewers. we need some too. obviously TBTP have 'other things' to worry about. and needent step in to solve every problem (just the big ones). i gather that Bruce is already a 'moderator' of sorts--he is tops here isnt he?

might the group also be able to handle AWOL officers? 'outdated' category descriptions? armchair markers? duplicate waymarks in untended categories? what about tyrannical officers?

maybe a little more invigorated typing from us all can then motivate us....

i often get comments about 'how do you keep all those categories straight in you head'.....hey, its not easy, and im not always right [stopping at a whataburger, now closed, did nothing for my lack of jack in a box].
i think the keyword search could use a bit of updating too, i often dont know the right word to search for an unfamiliar category....

and i always support the 'broad' 'inclusive' categories....there are places for specifics....

Let me add that I think the basic concept of group management and even peer review is a good one - an attempt to manage waymarking from a broad base of participation.  But, as OmegaLimit points out, this requires an informed constituency.  And, I don't think we want to trade the democracy for an oligarchy.

Part of the problem with the peer review process is that it doesn't allow for any participatory discussion.  Once a category is up for vote, it's as if each person is in a private voting booth.  If the idea has not been discussed in the forums, we go in cold.  And, a lot of people who do peer review don't participate, or at least post, to the forums. (Obviously some people read the forums who do not post).  So, if there is a serious deficiency in a category, there is no way to point this out to others who may be voting - except posting to the forum during peer review.

So, it comes up again.  Is there someway to require a new category to go to the forums for discussion, or have some other opportunity for public input, before going to vote?

And, another suggestion that has often been made, is that a minimum of experience be required before someone can create or be an officer in a category.   The latest category proposal is from someone with ZERO waymarks created or visited, and is another slice-and-dice of an existing category.

As far as an accreditation committee or something -- well, I think that might be a good idea as part of the initial review process - before it goes out for general peer review.  I'm not sure that reevaluating existing categories is a good idea at all.   We don't want to delete categories.   I don't think we want to force anyone to do anything.  Maybe we could have some sort of rating system, like five stars for a superb category, etc.  Or, if the committee would be working just on a consulting basis to help bring some troubled categories up to par that might work. 

If the broad base of peer reviewers can't apply the published standards to categories, we need another way to do that to preserve the integrity of the game.  For really troubled categories, though, someone at sometime, is going to need to be able to have additional powers to step in and rescue them.  But, now, I've wandered into another thread.

I think it would be good if other people's comments were visible as they voted (no name tied to them).    Thus if the more informed voted first and said that this category is a duplicate of another category that comment would be visible. 

I believe there are a certain number of voters will vote yes for every category... without even reading it.  I don't know what that percentage is however I think it is higher than most would believe.

I don't really think it is good to have any type "category vetting committee" mainly because I don't want waymarking to be like Animal Farm where some waymarkers are "more equal" than other waymarkers.

BruceS:

I think it would be good if other people's comments were visible as they voted (no name tied to them).    Thus if the more informed voted first and said that this category is a duplicate of another category that comment would be visible. 

I believe there are a certain number of voters will vote yes for every category... without even reading it.  I don't know what that percentage is however I think it is higher than most would believe.

I don't really think it is good to have any type "category vetting committee" mainly because I don't want waymarking to be like Animal Farm where some waymarkers are "more equal" than other waymarkers.

I'd llike to see it have to go to the forums for discussion. Not just when the newbies make their first attempts but, for all concerned. I've voted nay more this year than all the previous years combined.

I'm almost to the point of forming a group for "Cracks in the Sidewalk". Any takers?

How peer review is evaluated is that I look at the overall percentage of acceptance. Anything under 66% is declined. For the ones that scored 66% or higher I then review the negative comments and consider the accuracy of the statements. It is important when there is redundancy that the already existing category is named so I know where to read and compare. Unless the new one is a clone of another one I accept it.

Where it becomes difficult is when subsets come into play. I try my best think if the proposal is something that is complete on its own.

silverquill:

I'm sure we can all point to some categories and wonder how they ever got approved through the peer review process.  But, several lately leave me wondering how effective the process really is.

I posted a waymark to a new category the other day, and found it had absolutely NOTHING in the "Posting Requirements" section, NOTHING in the requirements for posting visit logs, and NO variables, and about a one sentence description.  How that got through peer review, AND past the Groundspeak final check is bewildering to me.

I will vote NAY every time if there's nothing in the Posting requirements and/or if there's nothing in the Visit requirements. I vote nay if either of the Descriptions is blank too.

I suspect it's an issue with people NOT voting. The people that submitted it vote themselves, but others don't log in as much as they used to, and might miss the vote entirely.

chapterhouseinc:

since the subject was breached, here's my 2 cents: i stopped voting (on new categories) long ago. there was too much crap to vote on and it seemed as if people were doing what they wanted anyway. it seems as if my vote wouldnt have mattered anyway now would it?

Or maybe it's apathy!

checkmark:

How peer review is evaluated is that I look at the overall percentage of acceptance. Anything under 66% is declined.

But the 66% is of the total votes, right?  So if only three vote, and two of those vote Yea, it's approved.

Maybe the total number of votes needs to reach a quorum before the vote is closed.  If this is already happening, then please excuse my ignorance...

I think dinosaurs were after figurative sculptures, but anyway...

Peer review is like a democracy. You have informed voters, less informed voters, voter who vote along party (category?) lines. Etc.. Sometimes you wonder what happened. Hey, at least we don't have an electoral college.

I'm not even sure having a category go through the forums would help. I doubt a lot of people who vote on categories, haven't stepped foot in here.

I would be curius to see some statistics about WHO is voting in the votes.

Is it the core waymarkers all evaluating all categories?

Is there a big percentage of people that have never voted before?

I have a gut feeling that some of the categories proposed are getting voted in by GC.com premium members that are buddies of the category proposer. I'd like to see some eveidence to either confirm or deny this suspician.

As far as discussing in the forums goes, in general when constructive criticim is given after the category is being voted on, it turns into a huge forum drama. As I don't have the stomach for forum drama, I quit trying to give constructive criticm, no matter how well intended. I guess that falls into apathy, as identified above.

I did like the idea of the vote comments being visable during the vote. Based on my own experience, there are people who put a lot of effor into writing good comments during the voting. Many times there are things that are noticed by others that I might not have noticed.

As far as 'figuratve' goes, I think it's that two dollar word that scares people away. If the category name was animals and unnamed people, or some words written at a sixth grade level, you might not see the volume of sub-categories. In general, people create a category when they don't see a good place to post something that interests them.

Considering the instructions that we have for voting it is not surprising that many mundane categories pass Peer Review.

My mileage only would be for specific themes, kind of a "baby bear" compared to "papa bear" and "mama bear" from Goldilocks. Not too strictly defined and not too vague.

Hamburger restaurants / McDonald's / McDonald's that have playrooms

Nautical Buildings / Lighthouses / Non-White Lighthouses

Usually the vague one is better as a part of the directory. Figurative Sculpture probably seemed to be a good idea to collect all of the little things that couldn't stand on their own but instead has become a hodge-podge of everything.

While I'm not opposed to cross-listing, the idea of putting a lion statue into both the Lion Statues category and the Figurative Sculptures categories does seem silly.

BQ

well, my main issue is that i am the 'sole' remamining participatory officer in soem categories. problems arise that need clarification in descriptions that i (we) are locked out of......
border crossings is a LC conversion. that is how long it has been since the description was updated. im tired of having to just deal with it and send a note each time something needs discussing.

no, i dont want to delete categories either....shame i never posted an earthcache....i thought this was their new home, but they kept popping up elsewhere....has any categry been put on lockdown? i think a few.

i agree, you need to pass some sort of test to be able to intellectually create a new. everything is not new anymore--research does need to be done. maybe there is a minimum number of postet waymarks to reach.....maybe new requirements on the group creation page--what is the nearest category to this? how is it different? where does this belong in the tree? if they cant get those simple questions right.........

you want to talk about numbers: how many 'paid' members log in and vote, yet have no visits/posts? if your stats are at 0, really what stake do you have in the vote?

i think there might be a category (or few) that 1 person paid for enough memberships to create it himself......

and i will mention it again, how can someone with 200 posts think they know more than someone with thousands of posts? at one point there was a leadership ceiling. is it not around anymore? i was told that one of the SVM officers was on the group for 50+ categories, and he couldnt do it all.....well, how many cant handle the load?

does peer review work: NO.take these two instances.....
marks 1 & 2 are within 100 ft of each other. in a cemetery. the area is discliple garden (or something)....there are 2 concrte statues about 1.5 storys tall--thats a large statue. i got rejected because i didnt know WHO they were--to write a paragraph about them......ok, peer review. its the religious statue category. obviously the belong there, but the leader doent want to admit she doesnt know who they are either. shouldnt those peers be reviewing my mark? maybe one is a religious expert--the reason they made the religious statue category--maybe another marker will see them and inform us as to their name.....kinda like the train related categories....if you post something and dont know they look in their special places and tell you what you couldnt find....

in summary, there are issues with peer review at all levels....and figurative public sculpture is a bit too broad.....

As for newbies creating a category, the trend I notice is they do not conduct their research beforehand.  Yes, "research your idea fully" is in the FAQs, but perhaps a step by step guide would be handy.

When I was creating the Funicular category, I first did key word searches for various terms (incline, railway, funicular, etc.) in both the Groups and Categories.

When I was satisfied my funicular waymark I had in my pocket was not a satisfactory waymark in a similar category (Scenic Railroads) nor there was a funicular group in the future, I set about creating my own group by performing a website specific keyword search for everyone here who had used the term Funicular (in the Google search box  "funicular site:waymarking.com").

From that search, I invited those waymarker to my group since they knew what a funicular was in the first place.  I also invited folks from Scenic Railroads since they knew where to draw the line between a Scenic Railroad and a Funicular.  The key here was I recruiting existing waymarkers with experience and not begging my geocaching buddies with ZERO waymarks to help me fluff up my group (which seems to be the main problem in recent events).

To address SQ's original question "Does Peer Review Work?"  I believe it does, but not in the way you think.  Since there are nearly 500 more groups than there are categories, I think the really bad ideas end early.  When a category does come up for review, we as a group may be enablers (not me; I vote No more often than not), but we do provide constructive criticism.  I have noticed on many occasions where my comments have been copied and pasted into category description, and I am sure many others have seen the same thing.

So you may not have agreed to the main, overall concept, but your comments (aka Peer Review) were taken to heart. 

globetrotters.us:

As far as 'figuratve' goes, I think it's that two dollar word that scares people away. If the category name was animals and unnamed people, or some words written at a sixth grade level, you might not see the volume of sub-categories. In general, people create a category when they don't see a good place to post something that interests them.

This might also apply to non-English-as-a-first-language types as well.

In response to the original post by " silverquill" 

 I haven't managed to follow Waymarking much the last couple of months so missed the "Bear" category up for Peer review.
-As an Officer of "Outside Wooden Display Carvings"  I can see most of the submissions are/were loggable under both categories without representing a different  theme but only duplicating our category..

Silverquill is right, what's next? Totem poles, cigar store Indians? (both turned down in Peer Review!!) Ducks, geese or "Deer Statues, Rabbit Statues, Wolf Statues, Horse Statues, Dog Statues, Elephant Statues, Giraffe Statues, Hedgehog Statues . . . .  shall I go on?"
--- As I see it, someone was asleep during the P.T.B. final review. 

(Bruce did manage to submit 'Smokey Bear'  in 4 different Categories).

BTW: The "Bear" Category must have  be the  longest "Visit" instructions I ever read.

team farkle 7:

I'm almost to the point of forming a group for "Cracks in the Sidewalk". Any takers?

I tried that once. Didn't work.

double post

Jake39:

Ducks, geese or "Deer Statues, Rabbit Statues, Wolf Statues, Horse Statues, Dog Statues,
Elephant Statues, Giraffe Statues, Hedgehog Statues . . . .  shall I go
on?"

Just like the various state historical markers, because specific genus of animals were allowed dedicated categories initially, it stands to reason that it would continue.

But remember that prevalence is one factor when voting and that should weed out giraffe or hedgehog statues.

Also remember that some of these wide categories collect examples from many different sectors. Using your example of Outside Wooden Display Carvings, which doesn't allow anything that is indoors, some would argue that it would have been better to have three or four separate Categories, "Woodcarvings - Human Form", "Wood Carvings - Animal Form", "Wood Carvings - Abstract" and "Wood Carvings - Hybrid".

But to me, those would make a great variable in a "Wood Carving Displays" category

I do however feel that "Totem Poles" are unique enough to be their own category and feel the same about "Cigar Store Indians". Just because it failed once does not mean it would fail again.

BQ

am i the only on eplanning a trip this weekend to collect a cigar store indian icon? that has been a category for a long time--and a locationless cross over, right (it just took its time moving over).....

dont get me wrong, i love a good crosspost as much as the next guy, but being able to post a single statue in 5 categories? but, be sure that that 5 point statue will be one i visit when im in the area--as who doesnt like to run their visit #s up.......

i think there should be some sort of timed, compulsory discussion here. short of that/in addition, maybe vote comments should be made public.....before i vote i can see what everyone before me said when they voted. and inform my decision more--but thats just one more thing for them to scroll over......

I agree with much of the above.  I don't vote all that regularly, and I too can be depressed when what I consider to be flawed or unworthy cats are accepted, which is not infrequent, and feel that maybe voting can be a bit pointless.

I like the suggestion that vote comments should be published during the vote.

I'd also suggest an email notification that such & such a cat is up for review.  I don't normally visit wm.com causally.  Normally it's to either post or approve waymarks, and if I happen to see a cat up for approval then I may go and vote.  An opt-in notification (that's easy to use) would encourage better participation.  Maybe alternatively auto-generate a forum topic for each submitted cat.

Maybe if part of the submission process was to put the cat into "pre-vote" state, where it can still be edited, and forum topic is automatically created.

I'd also think that 66% is a bit low for acceptance.  That means that upto one third of voters can be against.

The software shouldn't even allow cats to be submitted if mandatory sections of the definition are left blank.

However I've had cats rejected in the past (generally with some good reason and sensible comments) so it's not a mere formality.

Team Sieni:

I agree with much of the above.  I don't vote all that regularly, and I too can be depressed when what I consider to be flawed or unworthy cats are accepted, which is not infrequent, and feel that maybe voting can be a bit pointless.

I like the suggestion that vote comments should be published during the vote.

I'd also suggest an email notification that such & such a cat is up for review.  I don't normally visit wm.com causally.  Normally it's to either post or approve waymarks, and if I happen to see a cat up for approval then I may go and vote.  An opt-in notification (that's easy to use) would encourage better participation.  Maybe alternatively auto-generate a forum topic for each submitted cat.

I was just writing a duplicate of this entire thing.  I'm glad I reviewed the thread again first.  I'm 100% in agreement with all of this, especially the notification.

yes, i think a weekly notification might help with AWOL officers too--if they got a message every week with the number of marks they need to approve, votes an d such....

but with the votes, they are supposed to only last a few days (max), so a weekly email is out for those....maybe a one day left reminder.....

peer review--i stopped voting about the time the 'there are votes active' icon came about. i never even click on it, so i wouldnt know whats up for review.....to know to vote no on bear statues, yes on 1000 places....

yes, theres RSS, but what about those oldfashioned waymarkers that like email notifications?

maybe some manditory notificationa, and optional 'pq's for those of us who care....

chapterhouseinc:

yes, theres RSS, but what about those oldfashioned waymarkers that like email notifications?

I did think about RSS when posting about emails - but I'm one of the old-fashioned ones