Groundspeak Portal

gt.us:

I'm wondering if I shouldn't set up a reminder to resubmit a month later on my denied wayamrks, that I don't feel were fairly denied.

you might be supprised at your success rate. seems like a lot of submitions are at the whim of luck of the draw.....

sometimes i wonder if certain unnamed reviewers even look at the pages at all. then there are those that will deny cause you aint spellin things right.

TheBeanTeam:

I was unaware that it had been declined earlier. Frustrating I am sure. Did you submit it in the Highway giants cat?

I just posted as a visit. For a new waymartk, if I don't get it created within a week of when I was there, I generally won't do it. I have a whole bunch that I asked a question about, and by the time I got the answer I no longer had the will to write it up.

I have to say Muffler men was one of the hardest category to get an icon in. 1) hard to find, and 2) hard to get approved. The one in ABQ took some back and forth, even thought it was on the listed website.

Yeah I remember it. It is one of the non-muffler man statues that is listed on the web site we use for verification.

It is frustrating when the database you use isn't even consistent. Add human error and inconsistnacies and you get even more frustrations.

To be honest, this kind of inconsistency with reviewing, interpretation of guidelines, and source material is a good reason for waymarkers not to become frustrated with declines. They happen. Sometimes they make sense, sometimes not. If civil discussion can be initiated to understand what the waymarker couldn't understand from the decline comments, then everything should be politely resolved. It really helps when waymarkers don't act like two minutes to fill in information is so much work and that their lives will never be the same if that work isn't shown to the world on the waymarking site.

There. I said it.

Redneck Parrotheads:

To be honest, this kind of inconsistency with reviewing, interpretation of guidelines, and source material is a good reason for waymarkers not to become frustrated with declines. They happen. Sometimes they make sense, sometimes not. If civil discussion can be initiated to understand what the waymarker couldn't understand from the decline comments, then everything should be politely resolved. It really helps when waymarkers don't act like two minutes to fill in information is so much work and that their lives will never be the same if that work isn't shown to the world on the waymarking site.

There. I said it.

You go girl!

It can however be frustrating to have something declined when it appears to be arbitrary, and something similar gets approved. I myself had tried posting a fiberglass Indian non-muffler man and it got declined because it's not posted on another site? But another fiberglass Indian was on it, so it got approved. The site that is used as reference is based on the travels of a guy named Doug Kirby, a few friends and those who take the time and email the site about locations they've spotted.

Sometimes I question the wisdom of Waymarking relying on other sites as back-up for proof of a location's existence. What happens if the site folds? Fortunately, we also have the Giants of Commerce category, that takes those the Muffler Men won't.

team farkle 7:

Sometimes I question the wisdom of Waymarking relying on other sites as back-up for proof of a location's existence. What happens if the site folds? Fortunately, we also have the Giants of Commerce category, that takes those the Muffler Men won't.

I've seen several examples of categories where there are non-existant web sites mentioned.

My "favorite" is the B&B's category, where 2 of the links are no longer existant. A variable asks if it is listed on a non-existant Christian B&B website, and if you answer "no" to that variable the waymark says "Christian: NO"

I've actually gone to the "source" website for roadside attractions and contributed.

gt.us:

My "favorite" is the B&B's category, where 2 of the links are no longer existant. A variable asks if it is listed on a non-existant Christian B&B website, and if you answer "no" to that variable the waymark says "Christian: NO"

I laugh every time I see how absurd that variable is.

I always say "yes" because I am and think it's so nice that the category asks me that everytime I submit a B&B. ;)

Redneck Parrotheads:

gt.us:

My "favorite" is the B&B's category, where 2 of the links are no longer existant. A variable asks if it is listed on a non-existant Christian B&B website, and if you answer "no" to that variable the waymark says "Christian: NO"

I laugh every time I see how absurd that variable is.

I always say "yes" because I am and think it's so nice that the category asks me that everytime I submit a B&B. ;)

Why is it absurd?
There is, or was, a web site listing these, so it seemed like a valid variable.  Calling it "absurd," I think shows some bias.  But, laugh no more, it has been removed.  Only because it has really proven not very valuable to the category.

Likewise, the one link that is no longer valid has been removed.

You, know, if one finds something like this - a broken link - a note to the group leader would be in order instead of sitting back and snickering or taking pot shots in the forums.  It is tough to keep up on links and we see them all the time on web sites.  We'd like to keep things up-to-date, but we need to help each other.

This was one of my early category attempts, and not well-designed.  This, along with Municipal Parks, were categories where the variables went overboard.  Seemed like a good idea at the time.  My view of the use of variables has changed a lot since then.  I'd change them, but all of the information for those variables would just be lost in the waymarks already posted.

The moral of that story is, "Think carefully about your variables, because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restructure them later.

silverquill:

You, know, if one finds something like this - a broken link - a note to the group leader would be in order instead of sitting back and snickering or taking pot shots in the forums.  It is tough to keep up on links and we see them all the time on web sites.  We'd like to keep things up-to-date, but we need to help each other.

what, we are finally catching on with the peer review idea?

silverquill:

Redneck Parrotheads:

gt.us:

My "favorite" is the B&B's category, where 2 of the links are no longer existant. A variable asks if it is listed on a non-existant Christian B&B website, and if you answer "no" to that variable the waymark says "Christian: NO"

I laugh every time I see how absurd that variable is.

I always say "yes" because I am and think it's so nice that the category asks me that everytime I submit a B&B. ;)

Why is it absurd?
There is, or was, a web site listing these, so it seemed like a valid variable.  Calling it "absurd," I think shows some bias.  But, laugh no more, it has been removed.  Only because it has really proven not very valuable to the category.

Likewise, the one link that is no longer valid has been removed.

You, know, if one finds something like this - a broken link - a note to the group leader would be in order instead of sitting back and snickering or taking pot shots in the forums.  It is tough to keep up on links and we see them all the time on web sites.  We'd like to keep things up-to-date, but we need to help each other.

This was one of my early category attempts, and not well-designed.  This, along with Municipal Parks, were categories where the variables went overboard.  Seemed like a good idea at the time.  My view of the use of variables has changed a lot since then.  I'd change them, but all of the information for those variables would just be lost in the waymarks already posted.

The moral of that story is, "Think carefully about your variables, because it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to restructure them later.

A quick note to the group leader would be the christian thing to do.
As far as older waymarks go, they might stay as is until the owner goes to make any edits.
One of the first Quonset Huts I'd posted had no address listed. When that variable became non-optional, it stood unchanged, and then for whatever reason, I went to edit it and it wouldn't let me save the changes until I gave it an address. When I was given editing permission to the category, I changed that variable back to optional, mainly because so many huts are in the middle of nowhere. I added a new variable for the type of huts and went through the whole category and filled in the variable instead of forcing people to make the changes themselves. It was actually quicker than emailing everyone who'd posted to the category. At the time, I had 40% of the category. I'm now at only 34%. Oh the shame...

how about the admission fee--enter 0 for free....
the 0 never stays, you must enter it each time you update the mark. anything but a 0 will stay.

silverquill:

You, know, if one finds something like this - a broken link - a note to the group leader would be in order instead of sitting back and snickering or taking pot shots in the forums.  It is tough to keep up on links and we see them all the time on web sites.  We'd like to keep things up-to-date, but we need to help each other.

This one "came to light" over a year ago, when a B&B owner was so upset to see his B&B listed as Christian: NO that he made a waymarking ID and posted on the forums.

We had a long discusssion then, and one of you that are good with linking to past discussions are welcome to get this linked properly.

I always add to my long description a disclaimer that the "Christian: NO" has nothing to do with the owners religion or religous beliefs.

Since BOTH of the Christian B&B websites are gone, the variable should be completely deleted. There is no benefit to maintaining a history of a website a B&B used to be listed on.

It's really not the broken link that's the problem. It's the appearance of impropriety.

Personally, I have had enough fruitless results from contacting category owners that I don't bother. I don't keep track of who owns what category, and where they are officers. By mentioning this, it's wasn't meant as a personal attack, and I'm sorry I didn't go any look to see who wrote up the category. SQ gets Gold star cat owner credit in my book for additing a variable from my hairbrained n00b request to have hours for Saturday and Sunday separate on a coffee house.

gt.us:

silverquill:

You, know, if one finds something like this - a broken link - a note to the group leader would be in order instead of sitting back and snickering or taking pot shots in the forums.  It is tough to keep up on links and we see them all the time on web sites.  We'd like to keep things up-to-date, but we need to help each other.

This one "came to light" over a year ago, when a B&B owner was so upset to see his B&B listed as Christian: NO that he made a waymarking ID and posted on the forums. We had a long discusssion then, and one of you that are good with linking to past discussions are welcome to get this linked properly. I always add to my long description a disclaimer that the "Christian: NO" has nothing to do with the owners religion or religous beliefs. Since BOTH of the Christian B&B websites are gone, the variable should be completely deleted. There is no benefit to maintaining a history of a website a B&B used to be listed on. It's really not the broken link that's the problem. It's the appearance of impropriety. Personally, I have had enough fruitless results from contacting category owners that I don't bother. I don't keep track of who owns what category, and where they are officers. By mentioning this, it's wasn't meant as a personal attack, and I'm sorry I didn't go any look to see who wrote up the category.

Yes. This was my understanding except I figured somebody had bothered to actually tell the category owner since this was a known issue that never changed.

But what do I know? Suddenly I'm biased against... B&Bs? Christians? Oh who knows. What's the new "Elle is ______" for October?

I think I'll go resume making dinner for my family (a full house of 7 tonight) before I'm accused of character assassination (whatever that means) for a fourth time. G'nite y'all!

Redneck Parrotheads:

To be honest, this kind of inconsistency with reviewing, interpretation of guidelines, and source material is a good reason for waymarkers not to become frustrated with declines. They happen. Sometimes they make sense, sometimes not.

I don't mind getting declined. However, I do feel the reviewer should review the category's requirements before declining just in case they are missing something. My favourite one was from the Boat Ramp category where I got this message:

Please change the title to XYZ Boat Ramp, XX. Ideally it should have the abbreviated state too in the title.

Prior to submitting I checked to see the requirements and there wasn't a requirement to even list the country or the state in the name field. And I see that many recent entries in this category get approved without a state or country shown. But for some reason the reviewer chose to add this requirement. This has happened to me a few times where an extra requirement or two was expected by the reviewer.

What I feel should happen is when a reviewer feels there is a need to decline, please go back to the category page and check to see if the submitter has met all the necessary requirements. If not, then decline.

Also, I noted the US-centric comment as well. This submission was for a boat ramp in a country outside the US. This nation doesn’t have states nor provinces. This is important to know when declining a non-American waymark.

i commented to several people that there should be an 'instructions for officers' section--as many categories have 'regular approvers' and when someone else stepps in to 'pick up slack' there are things that could be pointed out....

Hadn't picked this up on the forums on my last visit...I had a muffler man accepted...then a few weeks later declined.  Then several months later and another waymarker had the same 'muffler man' approved.  They are almost non-existent here in Canada and losing that one in Airdrie got my goat and has me searching again to fill that icon on the grid.

KE

 

Was it Western RV.

If so that one isn't a muffler man. Shouldn't have been accepted as one either time.

there are three in Canada that are documented.  I think the second one was waymarked by BQ.

BC	Charlie Lake - Fort St. John	Tips	Bunyan, no beard	In front of Clarke Sawmill. Hands: std. Accessories: Helmet, axe on long pole.		A few kilometers north of Fort St. John, British Columbia, on the Alaska Highway - Highway 97, Mile 62.
ON	Fonthill	6/7/2003 Tips	Canuck Headed	AKA Mr. Furnace Hands: std. Accessories: branding iron		Corner of Hwy. 20 and Hwy. 406.
PQ	Iberville	5/19/2001 Tips	Canuck Headed	Coke holding Frenchy-headed Canadian M-Man Hands: std. Accessories: Coke Can and Hot Dog		Route 133 close to the town of Saint Sebastien, Quebec. Vermont: 89 North over the Canadian Border up 135.

http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1HRY_Western_RV_Cowboy_Airdrie_Alberta but it's gone and says deleted when you search for it  ...

TheBeanTeam:

Was it Western RV.

If so that one isn't a muffler man. Shouldn't have been accepted as one either time.

there are three in Canada that are documented.  I think the second one was waymarked by BQ.

BC	Charlie Lake - Fort St. John	Tips	Bunyan, no beard	In front of Clarke Sawmill. Hands: std. Accessories: Helmet, axe on long pole.		A few kilometers north of Fort St. John, British Columbia, on the Alaska Highway - Highway 97, Mile 62.
ON	Fonthill	6/7/2003 Tips	Canuck Headed	AKA Mr. Furnace Hands: std. Accessories: branding iron		Corner of Hwy. 20 and Hwy. 406.
PQ	Iberville	5/19/2001 Tips	Canuck Headed	Coke holding Frenchy-headed Canadian M-Man Hands: std. Accessories: Coke Can and Hot Dog		Route 133 close to the town of Saint Sebastien, Quebec. Vermont: 89 North over the Canadian Border up 135.

Yup... I got that Muffler Man

BQ