Groundspeak Portal

The "Last of its Kind"  category has been created, please review it and vote YEA.

Thanks!

Discussions on this here and here

I'm a little confused...Why do Lasts deserve their own category?  Everything that could be posted here can also be posted in another category, right?  It doesn't seem to me that a redundant category is necessary.  But, I'm willing to be convinced.

Good luck!!

 

- Elle

yramc600:

Discussions on this here and here

I'm a little confused...Why do Lasts deserve their own category?  Everything that could be posted here can also be posted in another category, right?  It doesn't seem to me that a redundant category is necessary.  But, I'm willing to be convinced.

Well, I have to agree with you on this one!  I'm not out to shoot anyone down, but this is redundant.  There are a few of these already in the Superlatives category, for instance.  As the group leader of that one, I can tell you that "lasts" are certainly welcome.  (Disclaimer)

I've already stated my opinion about redundant categories, so I won't belabor the point, except to note that we are seeing more and more of them.  Overlapping categories are one thing, but near total redundancy is another.  There needs to be some compelling reason, and there are a few, to do this.  I don't see any in this case.  Sorry.

silverquill:

Well, I have to agree with you on this one!  I'm not out to shoot anyone down, but this is redundant.  There are a few of these already in the Superlatives category, for instance.  As the group leader of that one, I can tell you that "lasts" are certainly welcome.  (Disclaimer)

I've already stated my opinion about redundant categories, so I won't belabor the point, except to note that we are seeing more and more of them.  Overlapping categories are one thing, but near total redundancy is another.  There needs to be some compelling reason, and there are a few, to do this.  I don't see any in this case.  Sorry.

Would it prevent redundency to offer a special variable or check box for Lasts within Superlatives? You could even invite the person who proposed the lasts to be an officer, perhaps? I'm all for harnessing alternative forms of energy. 

Category is now open for waymarking ....
-->> Checked all the links and I see no problem as they are working as they should. <<--

Last of ITS KIND link 

Congratulations!!

- Elle

kjfishman:

The "Last of its Kind"  category has been created, please review it and vote YEA.

Thanks!

I'm really disturbed by this!  Why, after the discussion, do you still insist on floating a category that is TOTALLY redundant with another category?  This is totally contrary to the waymarking philosophy and the "Redundancy" criterion?  There is no rationale for this, and none has been offered. 

So, what do we take from the Superlatives category next?  How about a separate category for The Tallest Things, and then another for The Largest things?

Look at some other examples.  There is a category for Science Museums. Let's say I have a special interest in space exploration, so should I create a category for Space Science Museums, and someone else one for Geology Museums, etc., etc.?   Or, how about we split up the Libraries category  - County Libraries, City Libraries, and Academic Libraries come to mind.

While I think the big omnibus catagories are too far on the other end of the scale, if we start dissecting existing categories and doling out the pieces, we are slipping off the edge on the other extreme.

Disclaimer:  Superlatives is a category I created, but I'm not taking this personally nor is my argument out of any sense of possessiveness.  I have more than enough here to keep me busy.  I think this is a legitimate concern.  I'm not trying to be excessively negative, either, but offering an opinion that I feel strongly about.

I'm open to here reasonable arguments, coherently presented.

"This is totally contrary to the waymarking philosophy and the "Redundancy" criterion?  There is no rationale for this, and none has been offered"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really hard to say which should or should not be accepted or if they could be included in another Category.
.....  on the other hand, wouldn't you agree,  if "Groundspeak"  --- (You know who) ---. had problems with it,  it would have been denied  at the end of Peer Review.

Jake39:

"This is totally contrary to the waymarking philosophy and the "Redundancy" criterion?  There is no rationale for this, and none has been offered"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's really hard to say which should or should not be accepted or if they could be included in another Category.
.....  on the other hand, wouldn't you agree,  if "Groundspeak"  --- (You know who) ---. had problems with it,  it would have been denied  at the end of Peer Review.

Frankly, I'm surprised "they" didn't veto this one - except that they seem to act only in extreme cases.  But, if this is really okay with Groundspeak policy, then I suggest that a serious revision on the statement on the Redundancy standard, because as it reads now, this kind of category would definitely be disqualified. 

And, if this practice is really okay with them, then I would respectfully disagree, contending that it is bad practice and bad for waymarking. 

silverquill:

Frankly, I'm surprised "they" didn't veto this one - except that they seem to act only in extreme cases.  But, if this is really okay with Groundspeak policy, then I suggest that a serious revision on the statement on the Redundancy standard, because as it reads now, this kind of category would definitely be disqualified. 

And, if this practice is really okay with them, then I would respectfully disagree, contending that it is bad practice and bad for waymarking.

It's quite possible that they expect people to hash it out here and try and get rid of the redundancy that way.  IE, if the Category officers had listened to you, this category wouldn't have seen the light of day.  Then there is the chance for us all to vote no on it, (I'll admit I did).  Finally if it's glaringly obviously a problem, it won't get listed by GS.  I see it as us having one chance to try to proactively getting it before the vote and then one active chance to shoot it down at vote. 

Maybe this is another case where waymarking needs some sort of wayreviewer who will actually spend the time analyzing the categories before they go to vote (or after)...

I don't see that "Last of its kind" is redundant. I do see that it could be completely enclosed within "Superlatives" but that doesn't make it redundant.

LoiK is a more specific category, and to be honest I've never understood why entries in my FoiK aren't eligible in Superlatives either.

I don't like categories that exclude valid listings on the sole reason that they can be listed elsewhere.

"Domestic Pets: We except cats and dogs, fish and anything else you could have as a domestic pet, but not poodles since they have their own category already."... that makes no sense to me at all.

BQ

the blue quasar:

I don't see that "Last of its kind" is redundant. I do see that it could be completely enclosed within "Superlatives" but that doesn't make it redundant.

But isn't "Last of its kind" an example of a "blue lighthouse"  being redundant of a "lighthouse" category which is used in the example of redundancy in "voting guide".  

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

I don't see that "Last of its kind" is redundant. I do see that it could be completely enclosed within "Superlatives" but that doesn't make it redundant.

-- But isn't "Last of its kind" an example of a "blue lighthouse"  being redundant of a "lighthouse" category which is used in the example of redundancy in "voting guide".  

On the other hand isn't ---
--   "FIRST" of its kind" an example of a "blue lighthouse"  being redundant of a "lighthouse" category which is used in the example of redundancy in "voting guide".  
  what's the difference between "First" and  "Last" ??? 

Jake39:

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

I don't see that "Last of its kind" is redundant. I do see that it could be completely enclosed within "Superlatives" but that doesn't make it redundant.

-- But isn't "Last of its kind" an example of a "blue lighthouse"  being redundant of a "lighthouse" category which is used in the example of redundancy in "voting guide".  

On the other hand isn't ---
--   "FIRST" of its kind" an example of a "blue lighthouse"  being redundant of a "lighthouse" category which is used in the example of redundancy in "voting guide".  
  what's the difference between "First" and  "Last" ??? 

The difference is that the First category came before the Superlative category.  The Superlative category was not viewed as redundant as it was broader and actually does not allow firsts if there is a sign or plaque indicating the first.

I knew this came up at least once before, and it was in this thread where OpinioNate said:

That there is a broader category which encompasses your idea for a more strictly defined category should not preclude you from creating the new, narrower category (provided it passes Peer Review). In addition, no category should be restricting placement of waymarks which meet the category goals simply because there is a similar category in which it will fit. Each category stands on its own without regard to other categories in the directory.

Seems clear to me.

BQ

the blue quasar:

I knew this came up at least once before, and it was in this thread where OpinioNate said: That there is a broader category which encompasses your idea for a more strictly defined category should not preclude you from creating the new, narrower category (provided it passes Peer Review). In addition, no category should be restricting placement of waymarks which meet the category goals simply because there is a similar category in which it will fit. Each category stands on its own without regard to other categories in the directory. Seems clear to me. BQ

If this is now the guidance to be used then the definition of redundancy needs to be changed in the guide for voting... for that matter redundancy is not even possible unless someone submits a category for exactly the same thing.  I have a nice red brick lighthouse and I think there should be a category for "Red Brick Lighthouses" as they are really special and I don't like Red Brick ones getting hidden by all those white colored lighthouses.... Makes sense to me... NO!!

This is fun since there are many paintbrushes to choose from.

One could argue that any category is redundant if one states the waymarks themselves could just be in the Departments. Ditch all 800 categories all together and simply shove stuff in ART/MUSIC, or SIGNS or NATURE... etc

One could argue that we don't need "Statues (people)" to be broken down since we can lump "Musician Statues" in with "Statues of Historic People" since they are all just people.

Redundant can mean two things... exactly the same / covers the same function.

"Places to get Photocopies" vs "Photocopy Shops" would be silly. But if one of those already existed and another category came along called "Kinkos" then that should be fine. If "Kinkos" already existed and then someone proposed a more generic one... that seems fine, and I can't imagine the point of "All copy shops except Kinkos" making any sense.

As I said to someone else, cutting off part of your category even though the basic idea is what you want makes it weird. Duplication makes no sense, but generic vs specific is groovy to me.

BQ

I don't get why some such a big problem with Last of its Kind. According to Waymarking.com "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark­ and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." There bound to be a lot of interesting waymarks that will be created.for the Last of its kind. Some examples were given and already a few have been created. 

The category Superlatives  - Discover items, places, people, events, etc. that represent the extremes of their class, identified by any superlative (with a few exceptions). Now how is that a conflict? I think Superlatives works for some places that are interesting but don't have a category  that they really fit into and deserve a waymark..

The number of categories  has grown and yes there is some overlap. At some point the all category's may need to be reviewed and combined as needed but thats another topic.

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

I knew this came up at least once before, and it was in this thread where OpinioNate said: That there is a broader category which encompasses your idea for a more strictly defined category should not preclude you from creating the new, narrower category (provided it passes Peer Review). In addition, no category should be restricting placement of waymarks which meet the category goals simply because there is a similar category in which it will fit. Each category stands on its own without regard to other categories in the directory. Seems clear to me. BQ

If this is now the guidance to be used then the definition of redundancy needs to be changed in the guide for voting... for that matter redundancy is not even possible unless someone submits a category for exactly the same thing.  I have a nice red brick lighthouse and I think there should be a category for "Red Brick Lighthouses" as they are really special and I don't like Red Brick ones getting hidden by all those white colored lighthouses.... Makes sense to me... NO!!

Yes, I agree.  If this is the official policy of Groundspeak, then it should be incorporated in the "Redundant" criterion that we see when doing peer review.

Also, if this is the policy, then I withdraw my objections  -  although I have reservations personally about that philosophy.  If we follow this logic, then I guess someone could create a category called Museums, which would accept any and all museums, even though there are already at least half a dozen categories for specific types of museums!  Or, one could slice up any broad category a dozen different ways.   Pick on museums again.  There is a Science Museum category, but let's say I have a particular interest in geology, so I create a category for Geology Museums.  Someone else Natural History, another Space Museums, and yet another category for Children's Science Museums, even though there is are already categories for Science Museums and another for Childrens Museums.  Is it reasonable to rely on the vagaries of peer review to sort this out?

There are quite a few broad categories that specifically EXCLUDE waymarks that qualify for inclusion in a more specific category.  The reasons are often historic.  That is the case with superlatives.  I created it partly to give a home to waymarks that didn't qualify for inclusion in the First of Its Kind category because there was no plaque or sign on site.  So, I also expanded it to give the category more interest, but I didn't want to siphon off waymarks from the extant category.  Many people will cross post, but some do not.

Sometimes this doesn't happen.  For instance, if I remember right, the Lighthouse Bed & Breakfast category predated both the Coastal Lighthouse and the Bed & Breakfast categories without exclusions.

So, if excluding waymarks from one category because they qualify for inclusion in another is against official policy, then should all of those categories be forced to revise their criteria for inclusion?

Thanks to BQ for recalling this thread!  As you can see, this whole issue of broad vs narrow categories and how they all relate has been a matter of debate and discussion for a long time.  And, if  "Each category stands on its own without regard to other categories in the directory," is the guiding principle then perhaps the whole discussion is moot.  Half of it anyway. We can still decide if any particular category - broad or narrow - is good based on its own merits, but not by taking into account what other categories may already exist, either broader or narrower, that may relate to it.  I'm still not convinced we can put those kind of blinders on.

kjfishman:

I don't get why some such a big problem with Last of its Kind. According to Waymarking.com "Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark­ and visit interesting and useful locations around the world." There bound to be a lot of interesting waymarks that will be created.for the Last of its kind. Some examples were given and already a few have been created. 

The category Superlatives  - Discover items, places, people, events, etc. that represent the extremes of their class, identified by any superlative (with a few exceptions). Now how is that a conflict? I think Superlatives works for some places that are interesting but don't have a category  that they really fit into and deserve a waymark..

The number of categories  has grown and yes there is some overlap. At some point the all category's may need to be reviewed and combined as needed but thats another topic.

Don't take it that this category is being singled out.  It is more of a discussion on overall direction and Last of its Kind is just the most current example and is being used in the discussion.

BruceS:

Don't take it that this category is being singled out.  It is more of a discussion on overall direction and Last of its Kind is just the most current example and is being used in the discussion.

Thanks, BruceS!  Quite true.  I didn't mean to be picking on anyone.  This is a broader topic of long-standing debate.  And, this discussion has been useful in clarifying my own thinking, which is shifting somewhat.

Yeah, I have issues when one type of waymark are already accepted, then a new category is created just for that subset of waymarks.

For example:
The airport category accepts model aircraft fields. There is even a variable for it.
A new category was created specifically for that. Sounds redundant to me.

ggmorton:

Yeah, I have issues when one type of waymark are already accepted, then a new category is created just for that subset of waymarks.

For example:
The airport category accepts model aircraft fields. There is even a variable for it.
A new category was created specifically for that. Sounds redundant to me.

I generally agree with your comment.  But your example--I don't think model aircraft fields should ever have been accepted in the category for airports.

"The Chameleon Book of Lasts --Never-to-be-repeated moments from a world that is gone for ever" c. 1990 by Christopher Slee.