Groundspeak Portal

A couple of the comments that show up in every review, otherwise the Category was well received.. Vote: Deny Comments: I am really against commercial catagories like this. They seem uninteresting, unneccessary and quite honestly they are embarrassing to try to explain to new waymarkers. Use the yellow pages to find these stores, not Waymarking.com! Vote: Deny Comments: Please no more commercial ventures. Waymarking is not the Yellow Pages. Vote: Deny Comments: Use Yellow pages for these - Who do they think they are kidding? It's a commercial site, like it or not!

Congratulations on Independent Artist Supply Stores passing Peer Review! I'm happy to see that it's in the directory!

Now... This is where I make my broken-record comments about the rudeness of Peer Review.

Peer Review is too often a one-sided argument. If someone votes down a category based on wrong information or willful ignorance (not reading the category) or any other such non-sensible reason, there's nothing to be done for it. Comments such as "boring", ".", "not interesting or informative" and (my favourite abuses to read) "too prevalent" and "not prevalent enough" are meaningless. All the "nay" vote amounts to is useless negative energy.

Peer Review isn't a place for negativity, it's a place for productivity. Peer Review, when used in the spirit of Waymarking, is an opportunity to explain why the category received a "nay" vote in an effort to make it better and help the leader and officers.

I sign my votes. My "nay" votes are rare. I voted "nay" for a category today that I'm sure will have its own post before too long so I'll reserve any further discussion about that until that time. My point is that you can vote something down for the right reasons without being rude. And, if you're voting something down for the right reasons and you're saying something that you're not ashamed of, there should be no reason why you cannot include your username.

The other comment i liked was that "it's another McDonalds".I not sure where they came up with that, but hey it's their opinion.The category was very well recieved to my surprize.I honestly thought i'd get more slack.But i didn't and i'm glad.I think it'll be interesting to see what people come up with.But that's just MY opinion....Thanks for all who voted and the category is up and running.

Hey, when I'm hungry, I think.... Independent Artist Supply Store...

Redneck Parrotheads:

snipped. I voted "nay" for a category today that I'm sure will have its own post before too long so I'll reserve any further discussion about that until that time. snipped

Ah yes, so did I for Painted Mailboxes.
 Read the description yourself. You say what description? You decide.

Redneck Parrotheads:

Congratulations on Independent Artist Supply Stores passing Peer Review! I'm happy to see that it's in the directory!

Now... This is where I make my broken-record comments about the rudeness of Peer Review.

Peer Review is too often a one-sided argument. If someone votes down a category based on wrong information or willful ignorance (not reading the category) or any other such non-sensible reason, there's nothing to be done for it. Comments such as "boring", ".", "not interesting or informative" and (my favourite abuses to read) "too prevalent" and "not prevalent enough" are meaningless. All the "nay" vote amounts to is useless negative energy.

Peer Review isn't a place for negativity, it's a place for productivity. Peer Review, when used in the spirit of Waymarking, is an opportunity to explain why the category received a "nay" vote in an effort to make it better and help the leader and officers.

I sign my votes. My "nay" votes are rare. I voted "nay" for a category today that I'm sure will have its own post before too long so I'll reserve any further discussion about that until that time. My point is that you can vote something down for the right reasons without being rude. And, if you're voting something down for the right reasons and you're saying something that you're not ashamed of, there should be no reason why you cannot include your username.

Here's mine.  Focus on the people that want to enjoy your proposal and make edits that you feel were valid from those that offered ideas.  There is nothing to be gained by telling anyone that their baby is ugly.

I take the negative comments that I've had in Peer Votes, frame them, and put them on the wall.  The ones that appear to be total non sequiturs and irrelevant to the Category up for vote I plan on using for my Zippy Category submissions ;)

In all seriousness, I agree with RP for the most part.  I take the comments and make the Category better, and the ones that are not even complete sentences I ignore.

  A Nay vote requires a comment.  A Yea vote does not require a comment.  Thus it only comes to reason that there may be more negative comments than positive.

BruceS:

  A Nay vote requires a comment.  A Yea vote does not require a comment.  Thus it only comes to reason that there may be more negative comments than positive.

A negative comment needn't accompany a "nay" vote.

Redneck Parrotheads:

BruceS:

  A Nay vote requires a comment.  A Yea vote does not require a comment.  Thus it only comes to reason that there may be more negative comments than positive.

A negative comment needn't accompany a "nay" vote.

What do you expect.  "Nay - Great category"  get real.    Or to follow what you state earlier to make it constructive were they supposed to say, "Nay - if you could make this commercial store non-commercial I could support this"    From what was posted at the top of the thread I didn't see any that I would read as negative.  They expressed they don't want any more commercial categories.  They don't feel that commercial categories are good for waymarking and they can and should express that opinion when they vote. (Where the McDonald's comment came from who knows, that was not posted by the OP)

BruceS:

  From what was posted at the top of the thread I didn't see any that I would read as negative.  They expressed they don't want any more commercial categories.  They don't feel that commercial categories are good for waymarking and they can and should express that opinion when they vote.

"I don't like commercial categories." is a personal opinion.

I know you're familiar with the Peer Review instructions but I'll repeat a portion of them for anyone else who might not know:

Does the [name] category meet the four criteria listed at the bottom of the page (Global, Prevalance, Standout, Redundant)? Please keep in mind, we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category here.

Bold-faced emphasis is mine. So, if someone doesn't want any more commercial categories? Too bad so sad. Vote on the category based on the category's merit, not on personal opinion. You know my comment references the overall problem with Peer Review comments and that I'm referring to more than simply this one feedback and the few examples that were provided in the OP. You know I'm right.

Unfortunately, there's just not a way to change the way Peer Review is being abused since "we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category" is continually and habitually overlooked and ignored. The only resolution I could think that might influence change, but not directly create it, would be for Groundspeak to not count the 'nay' vote comments that did not contribute in accordance to the guidelines... which is very heavy-handed and carries with it a number of problems. So, basically, we're stuck with people thinking that calling something Commercial means Bad and Nay.

Redneck Parrotheads:

BruceS:

  From what was posted at the top of the thread I didn't see any that I would read as negative.  They expressed they don't want any more commercial categories.  They don't feel that commercial categories are good for waymarking and they can and should express that opinion when they vote.

"I don't like commercial categories." is a personal opinion.

I know you're familiar with the Peer Review instructions but I'll repeat a portion of them for anyone else who might not know:

Does the [name] category meet the four criteria listed at the bottom of the page (Global, Prevalance, Standout, Redundant)? Please keep in mind, we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category here.

Bold-faced emphasis is mine. So, if someone doesn't want any more commercial categories? Too bad so sad. Vote on the category based on the category's merit, not on personal opinion. You know my comment references the overall problem with Peer Review comments and that I'm referring to more than simply this one feedback and the few examples that were provided in the OP. You know I'm right.

Unfortunately, there's just not a way to change the way Peer Review is being abused since "we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category" is continually and habitually overlooked and ignored. The only resolution I could think that might influence change, but not directly create it, would be for Groundspeak to not count the 'nay' vote comments that did not contribute in accordance to the guidelines... which is very heavy-handed and carries with it a number of problems. So, basically, we're stuck with people thinking that calling something Commercial means Bad and Nay.

It is your personal opinion that people basing their vote on personal opinion and they are abusing the peer review.  A vote is will always based on personal opinion of how the category meets the criteria listed.  Some people will weight prevalence as more important, others may weight Interesting/Informative as more important and so on.  From this they form their objective opinion and vote Yes or No.  If we follow your opinion, why have a vote at all?    Just say everyone votes yes and accept it and then just complain about the lame categories.

I would go along with discounting Nay votes if  they did not contribute in accordance with the guidelines as long as they discount every Yes vote where a person does not comment on how the category meets the guidelines
 

(by the way I voted Yes for this category)   

It would be better presented under the context of the existing criterion of "Interesting or Informative"

Interesting or Informative - In general, good categories can be classified in one of two ways. Interesting: Can you imagine yourself sifting through the gallery for compelling and entertaining images, or making a special trip to visit a waymark in this category? Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently, or serve to gather enlightening information about a commercial location which may or may not be available from traditional sources.

One can interpret that many ways.  They are combined for a reason though and the word "or" is likely not a mistake.

What I have to question is "Why do some people want to create categories for these kinds of locations?".  I know why I do, I like treat foods... just ask my doctor!  When I roll into a new town, I like knowing easily where to go.

BQ

I know my voting strategy has changed over the last year or so.  I used to vote no pretty often because I would vote no if I wasn't interested in the category.  Mostly because of discussions in the forums, I realized this was not a good reason to vote no and was pretty selfish.  Now I try to answer the question "Is this a good category"  I may never want to ever post a waymark in it (other than a token one to get the grid icon), but if I think the category is well written up and reasonably meets the 4 guidelines, then I will vote yes for it.

I don't care for commercial or cemetery/gravestone categories, but I have voted yes for most of the ones that have been in peer review over the last four or five months.

When I vote no, I try to leave constructive criticism.  If I do not believe the category is a good idea, I try to say that in a nice way.  If you've put categories in peer review, you are well aware of how rude some people are with their comments, or, in some cases they weren't intended to be rude, but sound rude when coming only by text.

I realized I was guilty of this myself when someone reacted when they proposed a category and I came in and said simply "doesn't thrill me".  I hadn't intended to be rude, I was just expressing my opinion of the idea.  Now I try to explain more diplomatically.

BruceS:

It is your personal opinion that people basing their vote on personal opinion and they are abusing the peer review.  A vote is will always based on personal opinion of how the category meets the criteria listed.  Some people will weight prevalence as more important, others may weight Interesting/Informative as more important and so on.  From this they form their objective opinion and vote Yes or No.  If we follow your opinion, why have a vote at all?    Just say everyone votes yes and accept it and then just complain about the lame categories.

That's pretty wild, Bruce. How about we stay on track here?

Let's not confuse opinion with discerning thought and the ability to reach a logical conclusion based on distinct criteria. I think Peer Review is pretty direct in its instruction. It says, vote based on the four criteria and not on your personal opinion of the category. It does not say "vote whether or not you like this category." It's pretty straight forward.

Does the [name] category meet the four criteria listed at the bottom of the page (Global, Prevalance, Standout, Redundant)? Please keep in mind, we aren't looking for your personal opinion of the category here.

It's actually a pretty brilliant couple of sentences. It asks you what it wants to know and tells you what it doesn't want to know. Any deviation from this would be abuse, especially considering the extent its taken at times. As BQ has already mentioned Interesting/Informative, which is a criteria, would be an appropriate discussion point for a "nay" comment. Briefly examine why the category is not generally interesting or informative and give a suggestion on how it could be. Then a waymarker should cowboy-up and sign their username so they can lend a hand, answer questions or elaborate for the category leader and officers.

I would go along with discounting Nay votes if  they did not contribute in accordance with the guidelines as long as they discount every Yes vote where a person does not comment on how the category meets the guidelines

Get cheeky all you want but a comment isn't required for a "yea" vote so it doesn't really compare. A comment like "." or "No" is pretty much no comment at all, which skirts the comment requirement for the "nay" vote. I consider that unacceptable and while it's my opinion, I've reached my opinion with consideration of the actual guidelines and criteria that's been establish for Peer Review. It's not like I've daydreamed this all up under an oak tree on a summer day... I'm agreeing with Waymarking.com here.

From the FAQ:

What is Peer Review? How does it work?

Peer Review consists of a queue available to all Premium Members allowing them to review, vote, and comment on category hopefuls. Voting lasts for 3 days and is completely anonymous. As a general rule of thumb, a two-thirds majority is necessary to pass a category. In the case where a category is on the fence, Groundspeak reserves the right to make the final decision, but in most cases we will err on the side of approving the category. One of the things to keep in mind when voting on categories is that some people have a different idea of what is "wow!" If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't personally, you should vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

Bold-faced emphasising is mine.

Redneck Parrotheads:

One of the things to keep in mind when voting on categories is that some people have a different idea of what is "wow!" If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't personally, you should vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

Bold-faced emphasising is mine.

You highlighted the right thing.  The converse of this statement should also be true.  If you think that there is not a number of  people  that would enjoy the category then shouldn't a person vote No?  Along with the No vote they should enter an appropriate comment.  That comment should not be rude, a "." or just a No (as that was already stated by the vote itself).  It should address which of the criteria not met. 

BruceS:

Redneck Parrotheads:

One of the things to keep in mind when voting on categories is that some people have a different idea of what is "wow!" If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't personally, you should vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

Bold-faced emphasising is mine.

You highlighted the right thing.  The converse of this statement should also be true.  If you think that there is not a number of  people  that would enjoy the category then shouldn't a person vote No?  Along with the No vote they should enter an appropriate comment.  That comment should not be rude, a "." or just a No (as that was already stated by the vote itself).  It should address which of the criteria not met. 

Exactly. We can return to my original point that "nay" vote comments needn't be negative. Since you're actually in agreement with me here, maybe you just didn't understand what I was saying.

Say we have Locations for Ant Lion Photography in peer review. The category leader is an entomologist who's fallen in love with the ant lion. He's put a lot of effort into the category but you have to vote "nay" for reasons that are obvious to everyone but him.

"This category does not meet the interesting or informative criteria. The population who enjoy ant lion photography is just too small to justify a category for locations to photograph them. Maybe if you expanded the category to include more than ant lions. Maybe wildlife preservation that includes the insects?" ... is what I'm suggesting is a productive and positive "nay" comment.

"Not interesting or informative." ... offers absolutely no help whatsoever and will leave the category leader feeling confused because not only does he find it the most interesting thing in the whole world, but has also gone to great lengths to communicate and be informative.

Only good will come from people communicating what they believe will improve the categories that are in front of them, regardless of their vote.

I'm really wincing for the group managing painted mailboxes. They're geocachers and new waymarkers who just want to bring more geocachers into waymarking. They mean well. And they're gonna get chewed up one side and down the other.

Redneck Parrotheads:

I'm really wincing for the group managing painted mailboxes. They're geocachers and new waymarkers who just want to bring more geocachers into waymarking. They mean well. And they're gonna get chewed up one side and down the other.

Watch they will probably get 20-30% yes votes even with a blank category.

BruceS:

Redneck Parrotheads:

I'm really wincing for the group managing painted mailboxes. They're geocachers and new waymarkers who just want to bring more geocachers into waymarking. They mean well. And they're gonna get chewed up one side and down the other.

Watch they will probably get 20-30% yes votes even with a blank category.

It's really too bad about that Category, if it had been well written and examples posted I for one would have voted for it.
Just PAINTED means nothing to anyone. If they would have stated "hand painted & designed" such as a mural or piece of art it would definitely passed as a separate one from "Unique Mailboxes" (which is more geared to a unique design than the exterior finish of a regular mailbox.)
There are few really beautiful ones I could have submitted too.
--- Here we are back to experience, where the Leader at least, should have a number of Waymarks submitted and approved before dabbling in Category creation. 
BTW: You can always ask for help from an 'old' (figuratively speaking) Waymarker or post your ideas in the Forum first as we are here to help and not just critize your proposal.. ) 

Jake39:

[
Just PAINTED means nothing to anyone.

Hey my mail box is painted, it is all black and one of my neighbors has a green one and another one has a gray one.  You mean that is not what they meant.    I agree, if this one was well written with a few samples it would have fair much better.

I confess that I'm torn here... part of me would suggest that those interested should email the leader and /or officers to offer some assistance, but part of me wonders why they didn't at least look over any number of existing categories to get a general feel for what kinds of content can be found. Surely it is apparent that all categories have detailed descriptions of varying amounts of information. I've never seen one with nothing.

BQ

part of me would suggest that those interested should email the leader and /or officers to offer some assistance...

I went ahead and joined the Group and emailed the Leader of the Group to direct them to the comments on this thread.

It appears they're new to Waymarking judging from their stats, and relatively new to Geocaching as well.  Ironically, looking through the Geocaches that they own, they actually do a pretty good job of writing up Descriptions.  The Category, on the other hand, seems to be thrown together with a bit of haste.

BruceS:

Watch they will probably get 20-30% yes votes even with a blank category.

Which is why, (IMHO), Groundspeak and/or Waymonster should be a little more vocal on denying groups even if they pass.  People hit yes because it's there.  I bet the "place I peed" category would have passed.

Which is why, (IMHO), Groundspeak and/or Waymonster should be a little more vocal on denying groups even if they pass.

At the risk of getting smacked for being OT, I think it's worthwhile remembering that Groundspeak is a company, and I can't think of a better way to scare away the *noobs* is to have a heavy hand on the Cat submissions.

I think there is also an important distinction between the obviously malicious/mischevous and infamous "Where I Peed In the Woods" Category submission which appeared to be submitted as some sort of *Statement*, as opposed to the "Painted Mailboxes", which at first blush, seems to be both innocent and well intentioned.

As a Community, I think it's fair to smack the first example, but on the other hand encourage/guide the latter.

ODragon:

Which is why, (IMHO), Groundspeak and/or Waymonster should be a little more vocal on denying groups even if they pass.  People hit yes because it's there.  I bet the "place I peed" category would have passed.

It might draw more geocachers to waymarking...