Groundspeak Portal

I'd like to be able to sort by submission date on the approval queue pages, especially on the one that shows all the marks awaiting approval.

I don't particularly like the grouped by Category setup, so I'd like a different option.

0ccam:

I'd like to be able to sort by submission date on the approval queue pages, especially on the one that shows all the marks awaiting approval.

I don't particularly like the grouped by Category setup, so I'd like a different option.

Can you explain why that would be needed? As far as I can tell, they are sorted by Category and then within the cluster of each Category they are sorted by WM CODE.

Further to that, WM CODE should be the defining factor for whose Waymark came first.

BQ

I can think of a reason that he may want it.   If I have time to review 10 waymarks it is easier if the the oldest without regard to category would be on top.

By having them grouped by category it is easier so that you can keep one set of criteria in mind while you review a group.

I think it has to do more with how a person reviews waymarks.

0ccam:

I'd like to be able to sort by submission date on the approval queue pages, especially on the one that shows all the marks awaiting approval.

I'd like this as an option too.

When I don't think I'm going to have time to review all the waymarks currently waiting in the queue, I like to review them in order of their submission.

the blue quasar:

Further to that, WM CODE should be the defining factor for whose Waymark came first.

The WM code tells you the order in which the waymarks were started, but not the order in which they were submitted for review. My goal is normally to review the waymarks that have been waiting review the longest, not the ones that may have been started weeks ago and just submitted today.

cache_test_dummies:

the blue quasar:

Further to that, WM CODE should be the defining factor for whose Waymark came first.

The WM code tells you the order in which the waymarks were started, but not the order in which they were submitted for review. My goal is normally to review the waymarks that have been waiting review the longest, not the ones that may have been started weeks ago and just submitted today.

I can only comment that in Geocaching, as a Reviewer it is the earlier GC CODE that has the rights to the area. It has happened a few times when I've been reviewing Waymarks where there have been two for the same place in the same Category but by different people. First in gets it, and that is determined by WM CODE.

The difference though is that in Waymarking, we cannot see unpublished listings in the immediate area. Part of me would be a little ticked if I was still gathering info about a location only to lose the spot because someone else tossed a basic page up while I was waiting to hear back about some details, or worse yet... mine was in vote and a new one was able to jump past.

BQ

i concur with you 2. WM code is creation date, not submition.

how about this request: no pages on review que. just have it all on one page.

maybe have different sections (pages or tabs or just heading sections) on the que for submitions, resubmitions and edit suggestions.

I'm not aware that this particular situation has ever come up in a waymark review before, but it does make for an interesting philosophical discussion - two people submit waymarks (in the same category) for the same object: who's submission should have priority: the one with the lower WM Code, or the one that was first submitted for review?

the blue quasar:

The difference though is that in Waymarking, we cannot see unpublished listings in the immediate area.

A good argument for first-to-submit-has-priority. Since the Waymarking reviewer tool set doesn't allow a reviewer to take into consideration any unsubmitted nearby waymarks, one might believe (as I do) that first-to-submit should get the spot

Another difference is that in waymarking: unlike submissions to GC.com, there is no general concept of reserving an "area" by grabbing a lower WM Code at a set of coordinates (unless you also consider the category to which the WM will be assigned) since there could (and often are) several waymarks created at the same location (in different categories).

So in order for the lower-WM-code-has-priority model to work, the reservation system would have to account for WM code, approximate location, AND chosen category. Way too messy for us poor reviewers.

I say, first-to-submit gets reviewed first.

the blue quasar:

Part of me would be a little ticked if I was still gathering info about a location only to lose the spot because someone else tossed a basic page up while I was waiting to hear back about some details

I hear you, but someone would be just as upset if they put together a good waymark for a previously un-waymarked location, submitted it, and got declined because "someone is already working on that waymark".

the blue quasar:

or worse yet... mine was in vote and a new one was able to jump past.

In the first-to-submit-has-priority model, a waymark waiting for the outcome of a vote would have priority over any waymark submitted after it. The waymark has already entered the review process, and therefore should qualify as first. Even if a waymark has been outright declined (or declinded in a vote) as long as the submittal can be repaired and resubmitted, it should still have priority over any other waymarks submitted after it.

In an unrelated discussion with Bootron it seems each Waymark has two date/times.  Date created \and thus directly related to the WM number.  Date approved is the second date.   Thus in relation to this topic the order is by date/time that the waymark was created thus a waymark which sat in an unfinished state or one that someone reuses will end up higher list.  A Waymark does not have a submitted date related to it

The other places these date come to play are sorting of waymark lists.  Category lists of waymarks are default sorted by date approved.   The link My Waymarks (shows list of Waymarks in all statuses)   is sorted by date created thus the last waymark you created will remain on top regardless of status of the waymark.  From your own or someone's profile View All Waymarks (has only approved and visible Waymarks) sorted by approved date.

An interesting historical fact on these dates,  everyone says that Downtown Seattle 6th Avenue McDonald's was the first Waymark and it was the first Waymark created and is WM1 however it was not the first Waymark approved.  NOAA "Sound Garden" WM2 in the Wind Harps category was actually the first Waymark approved.

BruceS:

Thus in relation to this topic the order is by date/time that the waymark was created thus a waymark which sat in an unfinished state or one that someone reuses will end up higher list.  A Waymark does not have a submitted date related to it

Well,  that answers that! No sorting by submit date.

So in order to continue to review waymarks in the order they were submitted I'll have to rely on the order in which I receive the confirmation emails. Which is what I've been doing.

cache_test_dummies:

I'm not aware that this particular situation has ever come up in a waymark review before, but it does make for an interesting philosophical discussion - two people submit waymarks (in the same category) for the same object: who's submission should have priority: the one with the lower WM Code, or the one that was first submitted for review?

 
Happened to me once in a category where I am the leader. The other poster is an officer in the category as well. Similar situation as the one you posit but not the same. Neither of us was aware that we had been in the same area. We worked it out in an email exchange where I posted a few and he posted a few. (historical markers).

Another time this same user posted a waymark, in a category I am not involved with, for a location that I was working on. I had taken about a week to get it submitted and in between the time I started and finished he had posted one for the same spot and had it approved. My WMCode was the older but his was already approved by the time I hit the submit button, which was no big deal because his was better written anyway.

To answer your question I think that it can't be cut and dried. I think it is easiest to default to the WMCode but if one is a much more superior waymark creation then that should be taken into account as well.

It might be good (or maybe not) if when a waymark is being reviewed it displays all waymarks in vicinity regardless of their status along with their status.  I think this would be good particularly when a waymark may be stuck in vote limbo.  But if it is for a waymark never submitted then maybe not such a good idea.

Right, If it hasn't been submitted yet then the proximity alarm should remain throughout the entire process.

My oldest un-submitted waymark is from March of 2008. Possibly, making me the slowest waymark submitter on earth. If the proximity flag remained until the actual submit for reveiw it may eliminate a few (but maybe not many) problems.

BruceS:

In an unrelated discussion with Bootron it seems each Waymark has two date/times.  Date created \and thus directly related to the WM number.  Date approved is the second date.   Thus in relation to this topic the order is by date/time that the waymark was created thus a waymark which sat in an unfinished state or one that someone reuses will end up higher list.  A Waymark does not have a submitted date related to it

It appeared for a while that it did, and then they "fixed" the "bug".

I stand by my request. I've now realized it's much more difficult than I thought, but I'd still like it.
The date the waymark was SUBMITTED for approval is a more important date then when it was created, though the date PUBLISHED is certainly the most important compared to all the other published ones.

And you nailed the reason for this request way up higher in the thread.

TheBeanTeam:

To answer your question I think that it can't be cut and dried. I think it is easiest to default to the WMCode ...

I still think the first-to-submit model is the right way to go. Going by WM code opens up the possibility that one of my waymarks published 6 months ago could suddenly be declined and 'trumped' by someone who had reserved an earlier WM code at that location. In fact, what would stop someone from reserving a few WM codes without assigning real coordinates or assigning a category for the purpose of 'stealing' someone else's waymark later on?

TheBeanTeam:

... but if one is a much more superior waymark creation then that should be taken into account as well.

I'd say this scenario is a great opportunity to use the "Edit Waymark" feature. Someone submits a waymark, and it gets approved. Someone later comes along and submits the same waymark (only better) with a lower WM code. If I was the reviewer, I'd decline the second submission, but suggest that the better waymark information be submitted for the waymark as an edit.

That way, both the original submitter (the one that submitted first) and the follow-up submitter (the one that had the lower WM code, but submitted later) would get "credit" for the waymark. That seems to fit within the spirit of the waymark edit model.

BruceS:

In an unrelated discussion with Bootron it seems each Waymark has two date/times.  Date created \and thus directly related to the WM number.  Date approved is the second date.

What date gets stored if a waymark is updated through an "Edit Waymark" update process? Does the original published date get overwritten, or is there another date field just for this purpose? Or does the edit date get saved at all?

BruceS:

It might be good (or maybe not) if when a waymark is being reviewed it displays all waymarks in vicinity regardless of their status along with their status.  I think this would be good particularly when a waymark may be stuck in vote limbo.  But if it is for a waymark never submitted then maybe not such a good idea.

Another reason to support a first-to-submit-gets-priority model. Lets say that when when reviewing a waymark, we can see a list of other waymarks in proximity, including those with a status of 'not yet submitted'. If I happen to be reviewing a waymark and notice that the same waymark is in proximity, and has a lower WM code, but has not yet submitted, what do I do? If I decline the submitted waymark, and the person working on the earlier WM code never gets around to finishing up (cough TheBeanTeam cough), the waymark might be lost for all time.

0ccam:

I stand by my request.

I'll stand with you.

Unless Groundspeak suggests a specific guideline in regard to the issue of which waymark has priority for multiple identical waymarks submissions, I'll continue to follow the first-to-submit-gets-priority model, and sorting by date of submission would help follow this model.

cache_test_dummies:

TheBeanTeam:

To answer your question I think that it can't be cut and dried. I think it is easiest to default to the WMCode ...

I still think the first-to-submit model is the right way to go. Going by WM code opens up the possibility that one of my waymarks published 6 months ago could suddenly be declined and 'trumped' by someone who had reserved an earlier WM code at that location. In fact, what would stop someone from reserving a few WM codes without assigning real coordinates or assigning a category for the purpose of 'stealing' someone else's waymark later on?

TheBeanTeam:

... but if one is a much more superior waymark creation then that should be taken into account as well.

I'd say this scenario is a great opportunity to use the "Edit Waymark" feature. Someone submits a waymark, and it gets approved. Someone later comes along and submits the same waymark (only better) with a lower WM code. If I was the reviewer, I'd decline the second submission, but suggest that the better waymark information be submitted for the waymark as an edit.

That way, both the original submitter (the one that submitted first) and the follow-up submitter (the one that had the lower WM code, but submitted later) would get "credit" for the waymark. That seems to fit within the spirit of the waymark edit model.

These are very good points and I didn't even think about the edit possibilities. Thinking with a pre-update mindset. Your approach is reasonable.

This is not much different from what happens in geocaching. When you first submit a listing there you get an email stating that it was received, even if you have not sent it for review. When the reviewer publishes it, the date of publish might not match the date it was listed.

vs

BQ