Groundspeak Portal

ok, you found something to post--whatever it may be--and you 'google' it. Some things have a lot of great hits (the actial thing it self, the history, the address, the menu, etc), where as others you are lucky if you get the address.

what about these thing that have no sources for description generation? i have been told recently that i need to make something up. ok, well, how is someone who knows nothing about a spot (IE: a church in the middle of BFE) supposed to just make something up about it? seems like a lot of useless fabrication to me. what if then someone uses the crap i pulled out my 'a' as a wiki reference? i dont like spreading lies about things i know nothing about. why do i need to say 'i googled it and didnt find anything', isnt that obvious since there is no description? and if there is obviously a very biased description, is it not obvious that one would not write so many different ones themselves (catholic, baptist, UM amongst other various faith based categories) and that maybe the waymark poster got the information from the website link provided in the variable section?

 

what then if the object does not necessarily need a description? a picture says a thousand words, right? If it is a figurative sculpture: there is a picture of it, a short descriptive paragraph for the 'short' and i happened to put the address in the 'long' with a link to the 'store's' site.  this is what i got:

"Uh-oh!  Your waymark, 'xxxxxxxxxxx' has been denied by the
category owner.  The following reason/comments for the denial was given: 

The approver has written the following message to you:

You accidentally placed the address in the long description.  Please include a
long description of ANYTHING of note or interest.  Thanks.

in Figurative Public Sculpture

 

i thought that the main part of waymarking was to find these things that surround us that many ignore as they pass. if you can provide a good description, great, if not, then WE are glad that you found it and maybe now that WE know it is there a history can be compiled. but really, how much can you make up about a generic looking person and animal statue?

anyway, i was told recently that another marker didnt like the forums cause 'it was just a bunch of whining'....just thought id add some of mine.....[as i note i do like cheese with it, sharp cheddar please]

just wondering if anyone else has been running into ineptidude with posting waymarks. i have noticed that a large number of us 'beta' markers have fallen off--similar to how 'old cachers' tend to dislike 'new cachers' as i have come to find.

I've asked myself many of those same questions.

I've been trying to fill in as many churches as I can, around the radius of my home. Sometimes there is just nothing out there. I think the church that deosn't have an active techy member to create a website deserves it's place in waymarking just as much as the one with a awesome web presence. Maybe, even more. It's hard to even want to pull over to take the picture, when I hear the little voice in my head saying it's not going to be appreciated in the waymarking community.

I've had success with telling the reviewers that I have searched for more information with no results. Sometimes, when they see no information, they assume you haven't tried. Another thing I do is ask for advice. "I've searched here and googles there, and didn't get anything, do you have any ideas where I might find more here?".

Oh, for figurative statues? Have you been to the Smithsonian Art Inventory? It doesn't come up on Google searches, but I got the URL from waywardwaymarking.com , http://sirismm.si.edu/siris/ariquickstart.htm , and it has a huge amount of stuff.It's also searchable in other ways so, if your looking for a George Washington, or a Lincoln, it is easier to find.

What did we all do before the internet when we wanted to learn about something? We went to the library (or at least I did). There are a bunch of NRHP Contributing Buildings near me that I want to waymark, but can't find squat about them. I know the central library in Buffalo has an extensive local history section, so I intend so go there some snowy weekend afternoon and do some research.

Rayman:

What did we all do before the internet when we wanted to learn about something? We went to the library (or at least I did). There are a bunch of NRHP Contributing Buildings near me that I want to waymark, but can't find squat about them. I know the central library in Buffalo has an extensive local history section, so I intend so go there some snowy weekend afternoon and do some research.

Historical societies are good for this, also.  I have been fairly fortunate in finding material on line for many of the historic districts I want to waymark contributing buildings in, but if I ever start running out of things to waymark (say in about 40 years), I figure I may start trying to scrounge hardcopy material for libraries and historical societies.

When I was planning a stop in Cumberland Gap, I e-mailed some folks at a historical society to get electronic copies documents about the historic districts in that area.  They were very accommodating.

My eldest son lives about an hour from Savannah and I have made a couple of waymarking/geocaching trips there.  Its an AWESOME city with the largest historic district in the country (as far as I know).  I ended up buying a book about the historic districts in the city that detail all the contributing buildings.  There are over 100 historical markers in the county, a third to a half of which had been waymarked before I went there.  I've been to about 3/4 of them now, visiting the ones that are already waymarked and waymarking the others.

chapterhouseinc:

ok, you found something to post--whatever it may be--and you 'google' it. Some things have a lot of great hits (the actial thing it self, the history, the address, the menu, etc), where as others you are lucky if you get the address.

Please include a long description of ANYTHING of note or interest.  Thanks.

i thought that the main part of waymarking was to find these things that surround us that many ignore as they pass. if you can provide a good description, great, if not, then WE are glad that you found it and maybe now that WE know it is there a history can be compiled. but really, how much can you make up about a generic looking person and animal statue?

anyway, i was told recently that another marker didnt like the forums cause 'it was just a bunch of whining'....just thought id add some of mine.....[as i note i do like cheese with it, sharp cheddar please]

just wondering if anyone else has been running into ineptidude with posting waymarks. i have noticed that a large number of us 'beta' markers have fallen off--similar to how 'old cachers' tend to dislike 'new cachers' as i have come to find.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of someone out there that is sure to take offense, I largely agree with you.

As someone who reviews a lot of waymarks in quite a few different categories, I recognize the problem of the lazy waymarker who will just slap something together, never making an attempt to provide something meaningful in the description or to fill in the variables.  But, I also recognize that frequently the waymark, or the category, just doesn't need ten paragraphs, or even one.  And, as you say, there often is not a whole lot of information out there.

The whole thing about putting "ANYTHING" in the long description, makes very little sense to me, and I've run into this in categories other than the one you mention.  Frequently, I can say everything that I feel needs to be said in the Quick Description.  But, to keep these people happy, I keep that to one sentence, and put the rest in the long description.  To me, it makes more sense to put it in the Quick Description because this is what is visible when browsing without opening the waymark.

I'll occasionally return a waymark for more description, but I try to use common sense.  Is this something about which something more could be said, or should be said?  Does it appear that a good faith attempt has been made to describe the site/object and fill in the variables?  I've had some waymarks where the Quick Description was a repeat of the waymark title, and the Long Description was a web link.

My only disagreement is that it is not always true that a picture is a substitute for a written description.  Take a mural, for example.  Sure, I want to see clear photos that show the whole mural and some close-ups of some of the details.  But, I also want a written description of the mural - where it is, what is depicted, etc.  It doesn't have to be long, but a written description, of whatever the waymark is, is important, even if it seems redundant or obvious.  That doesn't mean fabricating anything - just describing what it is as far as one knows.

For some catgegories or waymarks I'm willing to do more research than others.  But, I don't see waymarking as being an encyclopedia nor a guidebook.  I've seen some categories that ask for such detailed or technical information that I'm discouraged from even attempting a waymark. 

Since I've created a few church categories, including the first denomination-specific category, and like to waymark churches, I do have some feelings on the subject.  Even for some really historic churches, there is frequently very little information to be found.  A surprising number have no web site at all.  Even then the information tends to be about current programs and ministries, etc.  The site is maintained for the benefit of the congregation.  Church staff and programs and activities and even "vision statements" change.  That is not what I'm looking for in a waymark.

For me, waymarking is first of all about location.  Then about identification and description, both written and photographic.  As a category leader of officer, I'm looking for ways to include a waymark, not exclude it, and I'd rather have one with a short description than not have it at all.  It is always a balance between trying to be inclusive and trying to maintain quality standards.

You certainly won't get any wrath from me but I do agree that there needs to be some balance.

Listings that are similar to this faked one just don't cut it.

Short Description: A church in Erie, PA
Long Description: This church is in the town of Erie near the Interstate.

I've seen worse than that. Like the other thread, I'm not suggesting that people fabricate anything but I'm not willing to accept what basically comes down to a "Flickr tag"

Often in Peer Review comments is something like "Use a Nuvi"... and that's basically what these minimal waymarks are.

If someone thinks that the forums are full of whiners, that is not relevant at all. Putting in a poor effort has nothing to do with anyone else's comments.

BQ

I'm great for saying "put anything in the long description, just as long as it's something" but, imagine that I were speaking to you and saying it with a pleading, begging tone: Put something in the long description please for the love of all put anything ANYTHING it doesn't matter what anymore just please write something to show me you care!

I'm just desperate for people to care about their waymarks at this point. We all know that something just might have no information available on the internet. Rayman kindly reminded us that there are these building that are full of books that people can read for free. I've become friends with historians and other individuals who are connected to and interested in the area, so if I have a question, I can ask it and get an answer. For one waymark, I couldn't find my information from a web source, so I got a quote from the city's mayor.

Writing a long description is about more than copy & pasting information. I think it's a blessing when a web document doesn't allow people to highlight and copy! It forces people to read the document and then rephrase it in their own words. This is something I have no problem doing.

My waymarks aren't amazing essays but I have put some love into each of them. The following blog post has a few of my tips for writing a long description on a waymark that has sparse information: Something from Nothing. It's what has worked for me if I don't want to head down to the library and nobody is returning my call or email fast enough for my liking.

Balance is key. As has been said sometimes there just isn't much out there to include. If there is truely nothing then note that and encourage people to share information regarding the location if they have it.

I really dislike seeing an empty waymark description. I like it even less if I can Google the locationa nd find tons of information very easily. That said I never say put "anything" there.

I would read the "anything" comment more as vernacular than a suggestion to lie. It is more of a tell me something about this item or spot plea than an invitation to fib.

Here is what I do if the submission has no description and there are resources for additional information.

If I decline I always quote the section in the category guidelines where I think the submission is lacking.

In one of the categories I created there is a line to this effect. "Provide as much information as possible in the long description." Even if that information is only a, "not much information is available about this location." it is something. Most times thought there is much more available information and the waymarker just didn't want to bother with finding or sharing it.

I find myself approving a lot of locations with a request for more information and  I couple that with actual links to that information and often the information itself. Yes, it sometimes rankles that I have done the "work" for the waymarker but  this seems to increase the positive interchanges. I have a huge success rate of actually getting people to add information using this method of review. I often get emails thanking me for the links and information.  I am respectful and courteous, or try to be,  with my suggestions but sometimes what I want to say is "Come On! How hard is a Google search?"
If my request goes ignored I will on rare occasions (gasp) edit it in myself.

If this bothers the waymarker...Oh well. I created or have invested a lot of time in the category. I actually care about the locations being submitted and not the icon that the waymarker is receiving.

Regarding "a picture is worth a thousand words" I also disagree. When I see a picture of statue with two naked folks that appear to be dancing. That's it, that's all I see. I have no idea that the image in the is a pair of mermaids. I have even less understanding about the location's history and tourist status. With the picture it is "Hmmm, a statue of naked people". With the addition of the long description it is, "Wow, They did that back then?"

 

Rayman:

What did we all do before the internet when we wanted to learn about something? We went to the library (or at least I did). There are a bunch of NRHP Contributing Buildings near me that I want to waymark, but can't find squat about them. I know the central library in Buffalo has an extensive local history section, so I intend so go there some snowy weekend afternoon and do some research.

Most of the old county history books I used to use for genealogy are at books.google.com today.

I always try to 'talk up' waymarking wherever I go. The waymarks would have so much more value if they were rooted in personal experience. When your not waymarking in your home town, going to a library or historical society isn't really an option.

globetrotters.us:

Rayman:

What did we all do before the internet when we wanted to learn about something? We went to the library (or at least I did). There are a bunch of NRHP Contributing Buildings near me that I want to waymark, but can't find squat about them. I know the central library in Buffalo has an extensive local history section, so I intend so go there some snowy weekend afternoon and do some research.

Most of the old county history books I used to use for genealogy are at books.google.com today.

I always try to 'talk up' waymarking wherever I go. The waymarks would have so much more value if they were rooted in personal experience. When your not waymarking in your home town, going to a library or historical society isn't really an option.

That depends how long you're there, what you do with your time and who you talk to. When I waymarked Rensselaer, Indiana, I located the Jasper County Historical Society, spoke with the mayor, spent a morning with the Assistant Fire Chief (got a tour of the town and a full run-down of the fire department's history), met with several offices at the local Catholic College (St. Joseph's), had an interview with a very respected member of the historical society in her hospital bed (I thought it was an intrusion but she said the hospital only gets four channels so she loved me coming to ask questions), and met several business owners and other government employees as I wandered around. I still email with many of them. I was there for a week... 1300 miles away from where I live.

I actually did everything except go to the library... but I could've done that if I'd wanted to. It was there and I had several book recommendations from the people I'd met.

That waymarking week also turned into a friendship with a professor at the Catholic College who found my waymarks and writes a blog about the city.

I like that Geocaching has the stealth/underground/secret society aspect to it. I like that Waymarking partners very well with networking.

So it really just depends on how much you want to network. If you're a social bug and don't mind starting conversations with strangers, information may come easier. If you mind your own business while you're out and rely on the internet for all your information, it may be harder to have something to write.

Now, specifically to Anne, I know with as much as y'all travel that there must be some outstanding people that you've met. I'd really expect that you and BruceS would be ones who could testify to the value of networking for information.

Redneck Parrotheads:

Now, specifically to Anne, I know with as much as y'all travel that there must be some outstanding people that you've met. I'd really expect that you and BruceS would be ones who could testify to the value of networking for information.

I would much rather recruit a new waymarker.

globetrotters.us:

Redneck Parrotheads:

Now, specifically to Anne, I know with as much as y'all travel that there must be some outstanding people that you've met. I'd really expect that you and BruceS would be ones who could testify to the value of networking for information.

I would much rather recruit a new waymarker.

Ah, that happens on its own.

On the same topic of Long & Short Description having few words I like to know what do you do when approving a Waymark.

--Do you just click "Accepted" or do you add a few words or maybe only a "Smilie"?
(obviously you explain why a Waymark is rejected)

Jake39:

On the same topic of Long & Short Description having few words I like to know what do you do when approving a Waymark.

--Do you just click "Accepted" or do you add a few words or maybe only a "Smilie"?
(obviously you explain why a Waymark is rejected)

Depends, sometimes I will just click accept and not say a word not even sign my name. Usually though I will suggest that they add additional content to help make the listing more appealing to read and informative as it relates to the waymark and the area where it is found.

BQ

Jake39:

On the same topic of Long & Short Description having few words I like to know what do you do when approving a Waymark.

--Do you just click "Accepted" or do you add a few words or maybe only a "Smilie"?
(obviously you explain why a Waymark is rejected)

I'll say something like, "Thanks for this waymark! [something interesting about what they submitted, albeit pictures or whatnot]. You might be interested in this website [url] that I found that has more information about the site. You can include a lot of this information in the waymark to let others know. Hopefully, visitors will have more information to contribute so you can update the waymark, too! Thank you for this waymark and keep up the good work!"

There are times when I just say "Thanks" because the above statement wouldn't be appropriate and I'm just really disappointed. They still get positive feedback for meeting the base minimum requirements for the category.

Mind you, new waymarkers always get unsolicited advise from me and ample encouragement. They really might not know and should know just how much they're allowed to do for a waymark. I mean, the sky is the limit. That Long Description is your blank canvas. Make it awesome. But experienced waymarkers ought to know this already.

Redneck Parrotheads:

I'm just desperate for people to care about their waymarks at this point. We all know that something just might have no information available on the internet. Rayman kindly reminded us that there are these building that are full of books that people can read for free. I've become friends with historians and other individuals who are connected to and interested in the area, so if I have a question, I can ask it and get an answer. For one waymark, I couldn't find my information from a web source, so I got a quote from the city's mayor.

Sorry I don't care. I just want to enjoy myself and visit places (while playing with my GPS). I don't want a job working for Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

I do care about some of my waymarks, but there is only so much to say about an elevation sign on the roadside (some are at interesting places, some aren't). Also, it's a McDonalds, what more needs to be said.

Fatcat

fatcat161:

Redneck Parrotheads:

I'm just desperate for people to care about their waymarks at this point. We all know that something just might have no information available on the internet. Rayman kindly reminded us that there are these building that are full of books that people can read for free. I've become friends with historians and other individuals who are connected to and interested in the area, so if I have a question, I can ask it and get an answer. For one waymark, I couldn't find my information from a web source, so I got a quote from the city's mayor.

Sorry I don't care. I just want to enjoy myself and visit places (while playing with my GPS). I don't want a job working for Encyclopedia Britannica.

I do care about some of my waymarks, but there is only so much to say about an elevation sign on the roadside (some are at interesting places, some aren't). Also, it's a McDonalds, what more needs to be said.

Fatcat

I am not an officer for categories about Elevation signs or McDonald's.

I don't want a job working for Encyclopedia Britannica, either. Being a history nerd will lose its luster if I get paid for it. I prefer to do it for free as a hobby on Waymarking.com.

I don't want a job working for Encyclopedia Britannica, either. Being a history nerd will lose its luster if I get paid for it. I prefer to do it for free as a hobby on Waymarking.com.

What would be really great would be to mark places, then hand them off to someone like you who would enjoy the research and do a better job with it. Kind of transfer ownership. I wouldn't want to do every one, but some.

A more likely scenario I guess is more people visit existing waymarks and post additional info.

Fatcat