Groundspeak Portal

I type up this HUGE marker for the Missouri Historical Markers and I submit with the required photos - no worries accepted. I then submit to a second category (Lewis and Clark)and get a denial because there was a statue approved back in 2006 and it's 75 feet away. Ummmm..... okay, this isn't geocaching and this is allowed. I'm thinking that if you haven't submitted more than maybe, oh I don't know, 5 waymarks, you shouldn't be approving them. Just a rant and an opinion from a slightly perturbed Onion! LOL They wouldn't want to see what I did in Harrisonville, Missouri, with an entire Historic District and each and every building within that district (40 Contributing Buildings plus the extraneous waymarks!) Ah well, I resubmitted with a note that waymarks can be within a tenth of a mile. We'll see what this gets me.

Good luck.

Hopefully the reviewer is open-minded.

I had a similar experience with a historical marker, too.  Fortunately the reviewer was quite open-minded. 

There were two historical markers in the park I was visiting.  I knew one was already posted, so I posted the second.

The reviewer was the one who posted the initial marker and was quiet annoyed I was trying to repost his original marker.  I pointed out there were indeed two and both could be seen in the photos of my visit of his marker.  His photos, taken from the same angle, show only one.  Some time in the 18 months he posted and I visited another marker appeared. 

I'm prolly gonna need the good luck. The statue is nice I grant you, but luckily it wasn't posted by one of the reviewers. The markers 1.) detail the contributions of the French to the Expedition and the second, (which I haven't posted yet) actually is another NPS marker that states that the overlook is one of the few locations that can be documented from the Lewis and Clark diaries. My thinking as a reviewer is that I WANT those markers in my category. I think the problem is that we have 3 people who are geocachers only doing the reviewals and carried this category over from the locationless caches. Time to get with, or keep up with, the program, guys. I'm just a little frustrated with this situation. I geocache and waymark both and I think that geocachers only are still a little upset that the locationless caches were removed and became waymarks.

iconions:

Ummmm..... okay, this isn't geocaching and this is allowed. I'm thinking that if you haven't submitted more than maybe, oh I don't know, 5 waymarks, you shouldn't be approving them. Just a rant and an opinion from a slightly perturbed Onion! LOL

here, here.....

My guess is that the reviewer assumed the sign was attached to the statue.

When the distance warning is tripped, I don't think it shows distances less than .1 miles.

A denial is an opportunity to address issues and incorrect assumtions. No big deal. Yes, Slightly annoying.

There is no requirement that a person have a single waymark before managing category (nor should there be, just as there is no requirement to have found a cache before hiding one). So get off the elitist idea that there should be some requirement. The people managing this category fully understand waymarking, they probably know more about stacked waymarks than most waymarkers do... they can't go more than  a mile without running into a few hundred waymarks.  This was not a locationless cache which was brought over, this category which went through peer review.  It is a very well managed category with reviews happening very timely.   By reading the category description I can see why they might exclude two items at same location as it is about the location and not the artifact at the location thus if two artifacts are closely related I can see them declining the second one.

In this case Onion explained they are for two different topics and I see they have approved it.

you cant be a back seat driver if you cant drive yourself.

chapterhouseinc:

you cant be a back seat driver if you cant drive yourself.

Yes you can. So get off your elitist view.  There is no requirement and I can assure you that Groundspeak will not make it a requirement.  And the group under discussion fully understands waymarking.

How many categories would there be if a person was required to have x number of waymarks before a category could be made ---- answer zero. 

Glad to hear that it all worked out.

It's easy to understand the frustration when a waymark submitted to any category is declined, because:

1. It takes time and effort to put together and submit a waymark.
2. People take pride in the work they have done when putting together a waymark, so it's understandable that a decline can be taken personally.
3. The review process takes time, so a decline may come days or weeks after submitting. And even if the decline was for something that is easily correctable, there can still be a significant time lag before the resubmitted waymark is reviewed again.
4. Category requirements vary.
5. Not every single situation can be covered in the category descriptions, so sometimes a waymark is submitted without the submitter having any idea that 'something else' was expected.
6. People on both the submitting and reviewing end of things have different styles of communicating, and it can be hard to detect or understand emotion in the simple typed messages that are involved in the submit/decline process.

Considering all the dynamics that are involved, it's actually kind of surprising to me that there aren't more of these type of discussions started in the forums.

i think you might be taking general statements too far. no not all categories have issues relating to 'nonwaymarkers'--but there are some. i will add that there are categories with 'very experienced' waymarkers that have issues too.

im just saying that when you halfway know what is going on, it makes the job so much easier. if you actually posted something yourself you might realize that we make mistakes, we forget things, we misinterprate things, and occasionally the 'hey, i have more than 5 pics in the gallery; the one you want just isnt on the waymark page'....

chapterhouseinc:

i think you might be taking general statements too far.

Was this directed at my post? Or one of the posts before mine?

cache_test_dummies:

chapterhouseinc:

i think you might be taking general statements too far.

Was this directed at my post? Or one of the posts before mine?

I'll join the horrible about using quotes club. And when I see the confusion when others don't do it, I tell myself I'll be more careful to use the quote button.

I always kinda thought the numbers of the posts linked together, depending what message you were on when you hit reply.

Going to the back seat drivers comment (Because I'll never master the double quoting thing)... My perception of the term back seat drivers was it referred to people that couldn't drive, and thats what gives it the negative connotation.

Going to the elitist comment... It's human nature to think that our experience is valuable, and to want our experience to be viewed as valuable. One of the nice things about waymarking is that it allows people who have different skills to contribute in different ways. It's important to see that it doesn't take away from the value of my experience as a waymark maker and vistor, if someone else chooses to contribute to the community only as a reviewer. Sometimes, it's just a matter of taking a step back an viewing something from a different perspective, when it's somthing very close to you.

gt.us:

I'll join the horrible about using quotes club. And when I see the confusion when others don't do it, I tell myself I'll be more careful to use the quote button.

I always kinda thought the numbers of the posts linked together, depending what message you were on when you hit reply.

The forum software does provide a clue if you look in the upper right it will give a message number and the "in reply to" with a message number.

I got a waymark declined. It thought it met all the criteria, but apparently the reviewer thought differently. At first, I was disappointed, but it ended with me putting it in another category which I'm really enjoying. The decline turned out to be a good thing. Along the way, I've discovered some other associated categories I might have never found if the first one had been approved.

BruceS:

There is no requirement that a person have a single waymark before managing category (nor should there be, just as there is no requirement to have found a cache before hiding one).

I've been thinking about this, and I definately think that a person who is in the position of approving the submission should have actually used the interface to create a waymark. (A guideline as opposed to a rule.) Even if they never submit it for approval, they should have an understanding of how, in the category they are approving, the instructions appear and the waymark changes between the edit page and the final waymark.

Here is an example of an approver message from an approver who has never posted a waymark.
"Please modify the date posted to reflect the correct date posted. I will assume you will comply and so will approve with that caveat. Thank you."

This is a very innocent mistake from someone who has never posted a waymark. I can imagine there is a broad range of mistakes from an innocent mistake to mildly annoying to turning off someone to waymarking (loosing a customer) that stem from approvers who have never used the interface to create a waymark.

I don't know of a formal approach to bring non-waymarking reviewers up to speed on using the interface. Perhaps the category owner could ask non-waymarking reviewers to create a fictional waymark that would get denied in the approval process. They could refer back to that experience when revieing?

gt.us:

BruceS:

There is no requirement that a person have a single waymark before managing category (nor should there be, just as there is no requirement to have found a cache before hiding one).

I've been thinking about this, and I definately think that a person who is in the position of approving the submission should have actually used the interface to create a waymark. (A guideline as opposed to a rule.) Even if they never submit it for approval, they should have an understanding of how, in the category they are approving, the instructions appear and the waymark changes between the edit page and the final waymark.

Here is an example of an approver message from an approver who has never posted a waymark.
"Please modify the date posted to reflect the correct date posted. I will assume you will comply and so will approve with that caveat. Thank you."

This is a very innocent mistake from someone who has never posted a waymark. I can imagine there is a broad range of mistakes from an innocent mistake to mildly annoying to turning off someone to waymarking (loosing a customer) that stem from approvers who have never used the interface to create a waymark.

I don't know of a formal approach to bring non-waymarking reviewers up to speed on using the interface. Perhaps the category owner could ask non-waymarking reviewers to create a fictional waymark that would get denied in the approval process. They could refer back to that experience when revieing?

I'll agree that in order to serve as an officer one should have a basic understanding of how waymarking works in general and how to create listings and variable requirements.

I don't think this is a very big problem, but I do agree that comments that are erroneous from people that lack involvement could be problematic. Having people create dummy listings sounds good on the surface but often it is easier to open dialogue when promoting the officer.

BQ

the blue quasar:

I don't think this is a very big problem, but I do agree that comments that are erroneous from people that lack involvement could be problematic. Having people create dummy listings sounds good on the surface but often it is easier to open dialogue when promoting the officer.

BQ

In most scenarios dialog is a preferred option. In some cases I find that people feel singled out when addressed directly.

If there were a resource similar to the how to post a waymark, or how to create a categiory directed toward how to review a waymark it would be easy to point a new reviewer there.

If I were writing a FAQ for how to be a reviewer, I would include somthing about creating a waymark in that cat, even if just for practice. Also it might define how often to log on and look for new submissions. I would advise reviewers to go back and view history of denials to see common problems.

Abiout it not being a big problem, I would say more like not a common problem, but any problem that causes someone to waymark less than they would have is a big problem. This flock is too small to loose even one sheep.

gt.us:

Here is an example of an approver message from an approver who has never posted a waymark.
"Please modify the date posted to reflect the correct date posted. I will assume you will comply and so will approve with that caveat. Thank you."

thanks for the laugh of the day.

the only way i have figured out how to edit the posted date is to post it on that date. not really any other option. i hope i never run into them....

gt.us:

I can imagine there is a broad range of mistakes from an innocent mistake to mildly annoying to turning off someone to waymarking (loosing a customer) that stem from approvers who have never used the interface to create a waymark.

This is why I try to be as flexible as possible when it comes to our category. I really feel that being overly demanding with submitted waymarks doesnt encourage people to enjoy waymarking.

I feel some category owners (most are cool however..) are like dogs guarding a fence!

fathrtime:

I feel some category owners (most are cool however..) are like dogs guarding a fence!

Hey - I'm cool! But it is my fence.


Category managers do have a responsibility to assure that waymarks submitted to their category meet some level of acceptability. Otherwise, we wouldn't need category managers at all - everything could just be accepted as submitted.

I guess it's just a matter of where any given reviewer chooses to draw the 'acceptable' line.

but, what does posted date have to do with anything? (other than in the case that someone else tries to post it too).

I wasn't speaking to gt.us's  "wrong posted date" decline issue, I was speaking to fathrtime's comment about category managers guarding their categories. That's why I quoted that particular comment.

i wasnt specifically replying to you CTD, you just happened to be the last post.

i was referring to the fact that someone was requesting that an arbitrary variable be changed.

as if they might say: you have used the wrong waymark code. i will approve on the condition that you change WMXXXY to WMXXXZ.

and alluding to the fact that some (not all) 'nonparticipatory officers' [the few goose eggs, and the others with single or double digit post/visit stats], though their categories might appear to function, really have no clue what it takes to create a waymark.

yes, sometimes it is nothing more than some coords and a pic (fast food?), but let those people try to post a space station sighting or a lucky 7.

in participating you famaliarize yourself with common mistakes that can be made, you know when more effort could be put into research, you can empathize with a poor gallery collection [yes, it is my fault that when i stopped to document the historic school in detroit it was snowing. if only i could control the weather]. so, it isnt so much about the numbers, but the experience that comes with them.

chapterhouseinc:

i wasnt specifically replying to you CTD, you just happened to be the last post

Ah - ok. Gotcha.

yes, might there be an option to reply to the thread, not a specific post? might eleminate some confusion.