Groundspeak Portal

Suggestion:

Do something to "Date Posted" so that it accurately reflects the date the waymark is actually submitted for category review.

As it is, Date Posted equals Date Created.

If one saves an unfinished waymark for later submission, the creation date is retained in the record, no matter how much time has gone by. Knowing when it was actually submitted would be useful information in the case of categories whose officers who are not all that prompt at approvals.

If the waymark is canceled and resubmitted, the original submission date should be retained. If the waymark is declined and resubmitted, the new submission date should be retained.

Perhaps a "Date Approved" should also be displayed.

Matt

<FiVermont> skrev i en meddelelse news:16024@portal.groundspeak.com...

Suggestion:

Do something to "Date Posted" so that it accurately reflects the date the waymark is actually submitted for category review.

As it is, Date Posted equals Date Created.

grethe dk:

I would prefer the date to be the date I was on the spot, taking the photos, taking the cords etc..

This is what visits logs are for.

I think it'd be nice if the date of photos was the date the photo was taken, though, and not the date it was uploaded.  Or at least have a way to pick.

Are you saying one should not only post, but visit as well?

Some category managers encourage you to visit your own waymark once your posting is approved. Personally, I won't do that: they're two different activities, and I only did one thing. To me, it's an artificially inflated count.

If we need to keep several separate dates, so be it. But back to the original thought: display the approval date. It would not be bad to keep a complete record of all actions, perhaps in a location available only to the waymark owner and group officers.

Matt

FiVermont:

Are you saying one should not only post, but visit as well?

I'm not saying "should", but I am saying that a visit log will record the date you want.

FiVermont:

Some category managers encourage you to visit your own waymark once your posting is approved. Personally, I won't do that: they're two different activities, and I only did one thing. To me, it's an artificially inflated count.

OK. A number of waymarkers agree with you.

FiVermont:

If we need to keep several separate dates, so be it. But back to the original thought: display the approval date. It would not be bad to keep a complete record of all actions, perhaps in a location available only to the waymark owner and group officers.

Matt

I agree with the complete record thing. Good idea!

Perhaps a "Date Approved" should also be displayed.

-That's an idea!

I know a few catagory owners say post a visit to your own waymarks, but isn't it obvious we have visited our own waymarks -we've posted photos!
(But not all have a GPSr in the photo, as is often required)

Bear and Ragged:

I know a few catagory owners say post a visit to your own waymarks, but isn't it obvious we have visited our own waymarks -we've posted photos!
(But not all have a GPSr in the photo, as is often required)

<rant>Personally, I refuse to post or visit in those categories.

As long as I post something someone might be interested in visiting, who really cares if I get coordinates from my Garmin or from Google Maps? For the record, I do use the GPSr; I just don't like being treated like a child, having  to prove I own one, and I don't see the activity as some kind of exclusive club requiring an investment in equipment before you can play the game.

In categories I've created, GPSr photos are verboten.</rant>

Matt

FiVermont:

<rant>Personally, I refuse to post or visit in those categories.

I just post/visit but ignore the GPSr requirement.  If the approvers/waymark owners want to disallow my submission because of that silly (IMO) requirement, then that's their problem and I'll just put their category on my "ignore" list.  A lot of the individual waymarkers don't care if you're visiting one of their waymarks and the category included that requirement but you don't post that photo.  They're probably not the ones who came up with that requirement afterall.

There are a few who have additional logging requirements on their own waymarks as well. I have a lot of  photos of visits that do not show the GPS where I haven't logged a visit even though I was there because I didn't want to waste my time logging something that didn't fit the ALR. Sometimes my photos could have been a great addition to the waymark but for that "silly" GPS photo requirement.

Another blessed thought.....

FiVermont:

Are you saying one should not only post, but visit as well?

Some category managers encourage you to visit your own waymark once your posting is approved. Personally, I won't do that: they're two different activities, and I only did one thing. To me, it's an artificially inflated count.

Matt

Before you criticize the practice I think you should understand where it came from.  In the early days of waymarking there were limited ways of searching and sorting waymarks. There were no filters as we have today.

Visiting a waymark was a tool that was used to enable you to search for waymarks that you hadn't completed. This evolved into the unfinished waymarks page link that enables you to view those with ease.

In the early discussions the idea was that yes, you had visited the location to record the waymark. When I log my "Waymark creation visit" I always log it on the date of my visit. Therefore the log is accurate. To say that the visit is artificially inflating a count is intimating that I am cheating somehow. Was I there or not?  The idea that  one cannot visit their own creation comes from the geocaching side of the site. It is considered "unethical" to visit ones own hide. The difference is in the language. One cannot "find" what one "hid". They knew where it was. One can "visit" to create a waymark....that is what I and many others do. Lets not confuse the two sites and bring in standards from one site that do not apply to the other one.  I hope that my tone is not coming across as confrontational as that is not my intent. I just hope to clarify why the practice came about and to intimate that it is not done with evil or diabolic intent. 

 The GPS photo requirement is another practice that migrated from the old Locationless Caches that no longer applies (IMHO) through the evolution of waymarking.

I don't mean to imply that it's cheating if you post a visit to your own waymark as long as it is accepted practice, but I will maintain that posting and visiting are two separate and distinct things. Yes, I was there, but I have already documented that fact by the action of recording it as a post.

Your way, you not only have to perform two separate actions to post a waymark, then to visit it; you also have to subtract posts from visits to know how many other people's waymarks you have visited (assuming you have always always always posted a visit to your own waymark).

My way, there's no question that each has its own unique meaning: a post equals my waymark, a visit equals someone else's. No additional steps are involved, neither to log the visit nor to perform a mathematical operation to arrive at a true number.

I guess it comes down to a matter of "to each his own," but it does make the visits statistic somewhat meaningless unless we know the person's preference.

Matt

If you waymark something, then go back months later to the same location, would you post a visit then with your new experiences at the site?

As many of you know, I do place restrictions for a "Visit" to some of my Categories.

1. A visited at time of placing  the Waymark  wont be allowed.   (until a subsequent visit)
2. A "Visited" only wont be accepted  (a  few words about the visit is a requirement)
3. I don't usually  ask for photos with or without  GPS but leave it up to the "Visitor"

A.F.A.I.C.---- If adding a photo to your visit you may display a GPS if you wish but a second uncluttered photo should then be included. which would satisfy most Category Leaders.
---- If you want to add a comment you can always use the  "Write Note"  link instead.

I still don't know why some have this obsession with visiting their  own Waymarks,  just to pile up the statistics?  (some are in the thousands)

 Get a life, go out and visit some real Waymarks, Waymarks by others and be proud of those.

BTW... I still remember the criticism I received, when we first started  Waymarking  in 2005,  when I insisted on having photos included with the Waymarks. Some felt this should not be a requirement. (how times have changed)

yramc600:

If you waymark something, then go back months later to the same location, would you post a visit then with your new experiences at the site?

Short answer, no.

I have seen waymarking described as a worldwide scavenger hunt.

In a real scavenger hunt, one person defines what is to be found (hides), another person seeks it. One cannot be both a hider and a seeker, nor is there any opportunity to find an item more than once.

I choose to participate in waymarking as closely as possible to a real scavenger hunt. I can post a waymark for others to find, or I can seek a one someone else has posted and log a visit. I can't seek (visit) my own waymarks, and once I have found another's, that's it. I can't find it again. Similar to geocaching: I hide, you find, and there's not much point in repeating.

To me, the game is in waymarking locations for others to visit and in visiting what others have waymarked. It's not in visiting my own waymarks and not in posting multiple visits to those of others (I see no point in doing either).

As for "describing my experiences" at a site: IMO, there are very very few waymarks that lend themselves to doing that even once, much less repeatedly. That smacks of blogging; I may read others' blogs occasionally, but I don't do it myself.

Matt

FiVermont:

To me, the game is in waymarking locations for others to visit and in visiting what others have waymarked. It's not in visiting my own waymarks and not in posting multiple visits to those of others (I see no point in doing either).

As for "describing my experiences" at a site: IMO, there are very very few waymarks that lend themselves to doing that even once, much less repeatedly. That smacks of blogging; I may read others' blogs occasionally, but I don't do it myself.

Matt

Multiple visits are not allowed in the system. Early on they were but that was changed fairly quickly.

Jake39:

I still don't know why some have this obsession with visiting their  own Waymarks,  just to pile up the statistics?  (some are in the thousands)

 Get a life, go out and visit some real Waymarks, Waymarks by others and be proud of those.

As I said in the above post above the practice of logging ones own waymark developed after much discussion in the old forums.  Accusations that people are doing it only to inflate numbers is inaccurate.

The practice  was borne out of several early discussions and was used by some as a filtering tool. This was my original purpose in doing so. I know I am repeating myself but this point has been ignored.

I for one feel that visiting ones own waymark even if it is listed as an establishment visit is an accurate representation of what the waymarker was doing at the time he gathered the information for the waymark. Categorizing the practice as something that is negative ignores the history of waymarking and the reality that a visit is different than a find.

All that said.... Today I went back and deleted all of my visits to my own waymarks.

Not because it is wrong to have the visits but because this discussion did get me thinking about a few things.  First, the tools are now in place to sort waymarks more effectively and second, because logging my own visits had become a waste of time since it is no longer necessary for the reasons I started logging my own. 

I will still advocate for those who log their own waymarks with a visit as within the guidelines of waymarking historically.

Edit to add: Here is a link to one of the early discussions about this issue where the practice evolved. If you read the tread there are additional links referenced in the final posts to the thoughts of the members of Groundspeak  on visiting waymarks. 

Here is the post that I am going to quote  from now on when people start complaining about logging your own waymarks.

bootron
post Nov 30 2005, 07:42 PM
Post #3

Group: Charter Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 12-July 04

____________________________________________________________________________________________
quote
(ChapterhouseInc @ Nov 30 2005, 01:34 PM)
i am still confused as to logging (visiting) waymarks......

i obviously had to visit the site to get coords & take a pic..... so then, unless the category says you CAN NOT log the waymark you created, is it logical to log(visit) the waymark?
in the fountain category, the description states that it is ok to log your own waymarks, however, this is the only thing i have seen on the site stating anything about logging marks you created.
in the waymarking as a game/'getting points in the game of waymarking' string, it states that you can not get FTF points for your own waymark--you just got points for creating it, so that makes sense--but you should still be compensated for your 'efforts' with more than a single point though.....this does rely heavily on point structure in place......
________________________________________________________________________________________

quote -
I think it's up to you at this point. Eventually I think it will be in our (Groundspeak's) interests to distinguish between the first person to log the waymark other than the person who visited the waymark, since it kind of defeats the purpose to have the person who posted the waymark also be the first to find it.
In the future we hope to put incentives into the game to encourage people to visit waymarks, but right now our focus is on getting waymarks posted and categories managed.
/quote by bootron.

Just passing on some of the information :-)

OpinioNate	Aug 16 2005, 09:50 AM Post #2
Groundspeak Lackey Differentiating between the two would be optimal and I promoted that in the features request thread some time back. I suggested another stat that said something like "Waymark creation visits" and "Visits to Other Waymarks"	Now it's a written rule: You may log your own waymarks.

Bear and Ragged:

I know a few category owners say post a visit to your own waymarks, but isn't it obvious we have visited our own waymarks -we've posted photos!
(But not all have a GPSr in the photo, as is often required)

Yes, it's obvious.  That's why it is OK to post a visit.  Besides (in my opinion) the waymark posting should contain facts only (unless the description calls for something else).  So feelings and personal experiences would go into the visit log.

0ccam:

Yes, it's obvious.  That's why it is OK to post a visit.  Besides (in my opinion) the waymark posting should contain facts only (unless the description calls for something else).  So feelings and personal experiences would go into the visit log.

This is an excellent point and another valid reason to post visits if they choose to do so.