Groundspeak Portal

has anyone else noticed the 'waymarkers who only log visits to categories that do not require a picture' phenemonon?

i just had someone log a lot of Wikis (the most notorious of the armchair culprits). not one pic. let it be known that they were all in Walt Disney World......you mean to tell me that anyone goes to Disney and doesnt take a pic?

It is more than this category though. it happens elsewhere too.

all this talk about editing marks to make them better, well what about making visits better?

looks like their goal is to log every WDW waymark with no pics. so far i have only found 2 where i was able to delete their log.

Downey288

http://www.waymarking.com/users/profile.aspx?f=1&guid=a583d37c-c5c3-4b50-9b6b-60140eb03e7e

as i commented to a private message on the subject, this is nothing more than spam, and at this point, i would rather recieve that.

Like you, I also had numerous visits to my Disney World waymarks today. Probably from the same person. Out of maybe 20 visits, all but about 3 were the same copy and pastes. One of them made mention of them uploading a picture shortly. I'll wait to see if they do this before making a judgment on armchair logging.

i just got a note that they have a dial up connection.

i linked several threads to help (pic resize, etc) and mentioned that the accepted practice is to finish logging a visit (pics and all) before moving to the next.

no mention on the copy/pasts text.....

chapterhouseinc:

i just had someone log a lot of Wikis (the most notorious of the armchair culprits). not one pic. let it be known that they were all in Walt Disney World......you mean to tell me that anyone goes to Disney and doesnt take a pic?

The person may or may not have taken any pictures during their trip to Disney World - all we know is that there are visits logs without accompanying pictures for a category that doesn't require pictures. There could be any number of reasons for this.

chapterhouseinc:

all this talk about editing marks to make them better, well what about making visits better?

I myself am not really picky about the visit logs posted to the waymarks I've created and I don't anticipate taken any action to promote the improvement of visit logs any time soon.

And judging from a new discussion going on over in the Geocaching forums, the person who posted the visits appears to be unhappy about an email received after posting the visits. If the email they posted is in fact what was received, I don't blame them.

Unfortunately, it also casts waymarking in a rather negative light.

Here's the discussion: This is why I'm a Geocacher, NOT a waymarker

they made a post here too, click over to see that one. they seem to be including only the details that appeal to their side....

I personally don't think that we should dictate what a person puts in their visit logs. Why should it matter to us? I don't own the thing that is being waymarked. I put it on a listing service and people can visit it. If they want to talk about their experience and post a picture, that's fine, but if they don't, why should I care? I've never understood this need.

this is the visit instructions for the main categoriy he logged:

Wiki
"Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category: To post a visit log to this waymark you need to visit and write about the actual physical location. Any pictures you take at the location would be great, as well."

so when the log (all 50+ of them) say:
" Found while at EPCOT, I spent two days doing the full world tour. "
that is not exactly fulfilling requirements is it? you visited 50+ things and had the same thing to say about all of them? i thought the point of logs was to share your exprience, not just say youve been there.....

yes, i might copy/paste visits to MY OWN marks, but when i visit one posted by someone else i try to make them want to open my notification, not groan, and say, well there goes another batch of useless visits.....

maybe include something about the food and wine festival going on--did you get a good glass of wine in france? a taco in Mexico? did you see the drummers perform in Japan, the xylophone thing played by the woman in China? Was the line for Mickey at Mission space really long today? Did you seek shelter in the moroccan fountain from the rain?

do we really want to foster an environment where everyone just posts 'TFTW' in their log and nothing else (hey, not all of them are P&Gs or skirt lifters).

Just because you might have adopted a verbose or detailed logging style does not mean that everyone else should.

I take pride in trying to provide an entertaining visit log and to provide at least one photo, and as it might irk me when people use cookie-cutter logging practices it is unrealistic to expect them to change when it is done repeatedly. It is also likely they would log their caches the same way if they did a huge cache run in one outing.

Also, and I mean no disrespect to anyone, but people that judge others by how they log should be leaving those logs in place. Low detail logs reflect on the author, not the person that posted the listing.

Like I said in the geocaching forums, we should be encouraging new players, again and again, never anything else.

Even if you had the best intentions, you can clearly see how it can fuel a fire and get others to jump on the bandwagon. Threatening to delete all of the logs, no matter when it was brought up, generated that response and has painted all of us with a big brush.

BQ

Exactly right BQ! We the waymarkers, should be more supportive to those who make an attempt at our game, especially the ones who are coming over from geocaching. We should not have spend precious time defending waymarking. http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=234811

I personnally dislike it when the folks who prefer geocaching speak poorly of waymarking. I can see no reason why anyone would make it any easier to do so.

It would be real easy for me to post a comment about how stupid it was to go to some spot and crawl around a 30' area, finally after considerable time, find a camouflage duct tape covered film canister while swatting away bugs, open it up and "Oh looky, a tiny note book(?) a broken nub of a pencil, and Weee! a keychain. Boy am I glad those satelites have nothing better to do."

But you know what? I didn't. My son and I went, found it, and even got to meet the owners. Came home and posted a comment that would not be considered offensive and I can live with that. Of course, I'd rather be waymarking, but I'm not going to put down geocaching. I'd just rather go look for something cool, and then post it here.

Anyway, as I said in an attempt to build bridges in the aformentioned Geocach forum, everybody needs to concentrate on what the two hobbies have in common. I think it would help if we all just stopped and took a couple deep breathes and learn to chill out. We're better than this.

ambrosia:

I personally don't think that we should dictate what a person puts in their visit logs. Why should it matter to us? I don't own the thing that is being waymarked. I put it on a listing service and people can visit it. If they want to talk about their experience and post a picture, that's fine, but if they don't, why should I care? I've never understood this need.

I agree. There are other priorities in the waymarking realm to deal with. People should enjoy their visits whether they write it in 5 words or 5 pages.

Two comments:

1. In Geocaching, somebody visiting a cache when they didn't is a problem. With waymarking it's not.  I wouldn't really wonder if Disneyland had been muggled and if I should archive the waymark,

2. The category never said provide a photo, so was he doing anything wrong. If you post a waymark where only one photo is required, and it's declined because you need more photos - wouldn't you be upset.

once again, this was not the first message sent to the person.

and it seems as if the 'threat' is the only thing that motivated them to take any action to fully develop their log (posting pics).

as stated about getting the same text in 50 logs in a several hour period is very armchairesque. and yes, i deleted logs, rightfully so in the categories where the requirements were not met (exact replicas says, upload a pic).

IMO, if i have to jump through these loops to get a mark approved, then you should have to jump through the hoops in the categories that stipulate as much to log a visit (uploading pics)......

the perfect example: best kept secrets. this category has a 'secret question' (much like a virtual cache)......i had to jump through so many hoops to get that approved, and someone (unnamed) immediately logged it. i sent them a nice note (it was the first one) saying that i had to jump through hoops to get the mark approved, and as part of that there is a secret question. when you can answer that question, i will gladly let you log it.

i have seen several waymarkers 'without cameras', but they take the time/effort to actually include information in their logs to 'paint me a picture' as so many visit requirements put it.....

maybe someone from groundspeak could look into my account history and see how many times i sent them (and many others) notes about logging instructions.

and maybe even include the text of the first one here.....

team farkle 7:

I think it would help if we all just stopped and took a couple deep breathes and learn to chill out. We're better than this.

Actually, I think some of the local geocachers have included waymarking in some of their cache requirements. I think there is a challenge cache that says you must have visited 100 waymarks. There was another one I saw that had a waymark requirement to it.

the blue quasar:

.............

IMHO, every Waymark should have a default image (except 'Best Kept Secrets') even if they are redundant.  We know what a McDonald's looks like right?  Still, consistency and an image improves any listing.

Submitting and then accepting your own Waymark listings is viewed by many as inappropriate.  While the system allows it, this type of action doesn't feel ethical.  Let another Officer check it for completeness and compliance. BQ

This whole Gluten Free group smells "fishy" except 8Nuts&Mothergoose


 Mr Seeking
Location: Vancouver, WA Status: Premium Member
Extend Mr Seeking's Membership Member Since: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, October 18, 2009     Forum Title: Everglades
 
 The Laundry Fairy
Location: Vancouver, Washington Status: Member
Upgrade The Laundry Fairy's Membership Member Since: Saturday, June 21, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, August 20, 2006   Occupation Certified QuickBooks Advisor  ~ (no waymarks -no visits)

MilkshakeGirl
  Status: Member
Upgrade MilkshakeGirl's Membership Member Since: Sunday, September 28, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, August 20, 2006   ~    (no waymarks -no visits)

 

gt.us:

team farkle 7:

I think it would help if we all just stopped and took a couple deep breathes and learn to chill out. We're better than this.

Actually, I think some of the local geocachers have included waymarking in some of their cache requirements. I think there is a challenge cache that says you must have visited 100 waymarks. There was another one I saw that had a waymark requirement to it.

Really? Cool, which ones?

Jake39:

the blue quasar:

.............

IMHO, every Waymark should have a default image (except 'Best Kept Secrets') even if they are redundant.  We know what a McDonald's looks like right?  Still, consistency and an image improves any listing.
Submitting and then accepting your own Waymark listings is viewed by many as inappropriate.  While the system allows it, this type of action doesn't feel ethical.  Let another Officer check it for completeness and compliance. BQ

This whole Gluten Free group smells "fishy" except 8Nuts&Mothergoose Mr SeekingLocation: Vancouver, WA Status: Premium MemberExtend Mr Seeking's Membership Member Since: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, October 18, 2009     Forum Title: Everglades

The Laundry FairyLocation: Vancouver, Washington Status: MemberUpgrade The Laundry Fairy's Membership Member Since: Saturday, June 21, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, August 20, 2006   Occupation Certified QuickBooks Advisor  ~ (no waymarks -no visits)

MilkshakeGirl
  Status: Member
Upgrade MilkshakeGirl's Membership Member Since: Sunday, September 28, 2003 Last Visit: Sunday, August 20, 2006   ~    (no waymarks -no visits)

As strange as it may seem, "Why would anybody pay for membership and not play?", from what I've heard sometimes a participant gets a couple of caching friends to join their group for the sake of having 3 members. They're like silent partners so in a way the group winds up being run by the one person.

team farkle 7:

As strange as it may seem, "Why would anybody pay for membership and not play?", from what I've heard sometimes a participant gets a couple of caching friends to join their group for the sake of having 3 members. They're like silent partners so in a way the group winds up being run by the one person.

Well, in a way, a lot of the first waymark categories were that way. There were so few of us, that we would use family members/extra accounts and each other to fulfill the 3 officers. I was asked to be an officer on quite a few categories, even though it was understood that I couldn't help maintain them all. We figured that as waymarking grew, if the categories got big enough that more help would be needed that there would be a bigger pool of waymarkers to promote to officers. Which has been the case, for the most part.

ambrosia:

team farkle 7:

As strange as it may seem, "Why would anybody pay for membership and not play?", from what I've heard sometimes a participant gets a couple of caching friends to join their group for the sake of having 3 members. They're like silent partners so in a way the group winds up being run by the one person.

Well, in a way, a lot of the first waymark categories were that way. There were so few of us, that we would use family members/extra accounts and each other to fulfill the 3 officers. I was asked to be an officer on quite a few categories, even though it was understood that I couldn't help maintain them all. We figured that as waymarking grew, if the categories got big enough that more help would be needed that there would be a bigger pool of waymarkers to promote to officers. Which has been the case, for the most part.

I know. I wasn't complaining, you do what you gotta do. I was merely trying to explain  why some group officers can have no waymarks, yet pay for membership for several years.

team farkle 7:

As strange as it may seem, "Why would anybody pay for membership and not play?"

Not that strange, to me at least.

There is one group I've come across that I wondered what it was all about as it is a New Zealand specific category and only the lead officer is based in NZ. That person has been a member of Waymarking since 2004 and has only visited one Waymark in that time. He hasn't created a new Waymark. Then it dawned on me, he has a keen interest in this category and is asking Waymarkers to find locations for him.

I have submitted a handful of Waymarks to this group as I see the importance behind it. And really don’t mind it that he is getting me to do research for him. It fits into one of things I feel about Waymarking – sharing with others those interesting places that otherwise get missed.