BruceS: black dog trackers: Why I very rarely vote no -
1) Judging 'too regional' is difficult. Many of us are in the
U.S. or Canada and they are relatively huge countries. Waymarking
was started/defined by including a McDonalds category made by
TPTB. McDonalds isn't commonly everywhere in the world so why
deny other countries and continents their franchises. Franchises
limited to one town is pretty regional, but several towns in several
states isn't so regional. The judgement on this isn't so easy.
McDonalds
are commonly found on all continents even India has McDonalds and they
in general do not eat beef.
I see I shouldn't have used
McDonalds to get the point across that different countries and
continents have different things they'd be interested in waymarking and
since they have no representation in the U.S. or Canada or wherever the
voter lives, one might think they are too regional.
BruceS: black dog trackers:
2) 'Too pervasive' is much easier to judge. On the other
hand, I have seen few to none of these. Confluences was the only
one that ever bothered me.
I
think the OP had a good definition here. If you can throw a rock and
hit one. I can think of a few categories which have been offered
up where this is the case. Confluence would not be one... they
are like 60 miles a part (unless you are talking about river
confluences)... Palindromes might fit that definition of being
prevalent though not obviously so.
I did mean river confluences, and as I recall that category had no size restriction of the watercourses involved.
BruceS: black dog trackers:
3) In determining what is interesting, one must have a global
point of view - not as in planet-wide but in terms of all kinds of
people and personalities. I commonly vote yes on categories that
I have absolutely no interest in, or even some negative interest in,
because I know that there are other people that have that kind of thing
as a primary interest or even lifelong hobby interest. It would
be un-global of me to attempt to deny them.
If
I can't see a large number of people being interested in the topic then
why have it as a category. Using your global sense in admirable
but just scan the internet and you will find all sorts of sites and
topics and there must be at least one person interested as they
created a site but that does not mean it has broad apeal.
That you can't see a large number of people being
interested in a topic doesn't necessarily indicate that it doesn't have
a large number of people being interested in it, and that instead only
one person on the planet is interested in it. I think there's no
harm in voting yes to a category that the voter may not know exactly
how much appeal it has or will have.