Groundspeak Portal

In general I like to believe that people want to do a good job with things they create, especially when their name is attached to it.

As many of you know, I try to make every effort to review with an attempt to include humour but today I couldn't even sign my name on most 'accepted logs'.... Why? Because there was such a low amount of text on the listings that I looked at. In short, I would be embarrassed if I wrote them. Half had either no long description at all or maybe had a single line with nothing informative or creative whatsoever.

There is far more to Waymarking than just recording the GPS location and taking a picture, tossing a line or two that anyone can clearly see by looking at a map and then hitting "submit"...

No one is saying it must be a work worthy of becoming a "Featured Waymark"... but I for one am tired of seeing such lackluster efforts. Waymarking is supposed to be entertaining, interesting and inspiring... and that can be done in every single category regardless of the focus theme.

BQ

I fully agree with the Blue Quasar on the long description situation, as it seems like the long description box  appears more and more like an "optional" item, when submitting a waymark. True, it is sometimes difficult to find something interesting to add to the long description in some categories, such as the fast food cat's, Walmart, and even U.S. Post Offices, however, through a little research, there has to be "something" of interest to add to the long description.

Preach it!

I've had success with asking people to provide more information on the approval email. In one case I asked the person if they could find anything more on the actual people in the mauseleum, and not just the name above the door. They were very happy to do a little extra, when asked. I didn't dis-approve as they did follow the rules.

Sometimes a waymark is the minimum, because it's a placeholdeer. I know if I don't get the waymark submitted within a day or two of my visit, I won't ever do it. I do come back and flesh things out when the creative side of my brain is at it's peak performance.

When I'm judging my own waymarks, It seems like nothing I can put in really satisfies me. When I put parking instructions it seems so lame, but it fills in the box, and it does add value. There are a couple other things I do for 'filler'.

I have concerns about putting anything 'original' in the long description box, it's usually a cut and paste with the source. I am seeing waymarking.com waymarks cited as source info more and more, and I'd rather say less than be the source of an error.

Usually, the more variables there are the less I put in the long description. I find it next to impossible to come up with anything to put in the non-specific and multi war memorials long box, becuase there are variables to describe the area, put in the marker text, report the weather, my mood when looking at it. Thankfully, most are in cemeteries and I can say "Michigan cemeteries are closed from sunset to sunrise by law". And really, thats one of my all-time favorite categories. If I didn't like the category so much, I would probibly get burnt out on pasting waymarks there.

 

 

Completely agree, BQ. I think that as we become more popular with geocachers, and non-geocachers too, that it's turning into a numbers game. That's not to say all newcomers are skimping out because I've seen some nice stuff from newbies. The best we can do as reviewers is to decline the submissions and ask for more info. I can only recall one of my 1000+ waymarks where I didn't put anything in the long description. Even fast food places get a few sentences from me.

globetrotters.us:

I've had success with asking people to provide more information on the approval email. In one case I asked the person if they could find anything more on the actual people in the mauseleum, and not just the name above the door. They were very happy to do a little extra, when asked. I didn't dis-approve as they did follow the rules.

There are a great number of posters who are wonderful about maintaining waymarks that they post. They care. Unfortunately, these recommendations will render no fruit... or poorly executed fruit... from someone who just doesn't care and just wants their little icon on the grid.

globetrotters.us:

Sometimes a waymark is the minimum, because it's a placeholdeer. I know if I don't get the waymark submitted within a day or two of my visit, I won't ever do it. I do come back and flesh things out when the creative side of my brain is at it's peak performance.

I won't approve "placeholders" unless they meet the category's posting requirements. I'm adversely against submitting unfinished waymarks. Someone who cares enough about their waymark to make good on promises to meet the requirements are good enough and experienced enough waymarkers to submit it right. If it's not done to your preferences but you've met the requirements and know it'll be approved, then I don't see anything wrong with posting and even including a Private Message that you'll flesh it out when the brain gets back. As an officer, I'd find that reassuring and not think anything more about it.

When I tried to cut corners, my waymark was denied and rightfully so. I always prefer to have my waymark approved but, from an officer viewpoint, I completely support the decision to deny until I get my act together.

globetrotters.us:

Usually, the more variables there are the less I put in the long description. I find it next to impossible to come up with anything to put in the non-specific and multi war memorials long box, because there are variables to describe the area, put in the marker text, report the weather, my mood when looking at it. Thankfully, most are in cemeteries and I can say "Michigan cemeteries are closed from sunset to sunrise by law". And really, thats one of my all-time favorite categories. If I didn't like the category so much, I would probibly get burnt out on pasting waymarks there.

In the war memorial categories, I write the long description like it is its own piece. Then I provide the information that the variables request. It is the difference between providing an essay-like factual depiction of a specific site including as much information as possible that relates to the site, and providing specific information in answer to specific questions. Someone accessing the page isn't there to read a short story. If they wish to read and quote the essay, they may. If they want to short-cut to the variables to find specific answers to their specific questions (eg. text on monument, date placed, etc), they have that ability.

Variables help insure that waymarks aren't cheaply done (re: the topic of this rant) but are not a substitution for a well done long description. My writing capabilities are far from academic but I do my best to give it a good go. As an officer, I can't give enough praise for posters who complete the variables and provide a substantial long description.

There's just no easy way to tell someone to care about their waymark or not bother posting it. And you can't force someone to care about their waymark. I don't think the problem is really with long-term Waymarkers who try to push placeholders, but rather with Geocachers not realising that this is a different game. Geocachers don't post waymarkers, Waymarkers do.

globetrotters.us:

Usually, the more variables there are the less I put in the long description. I find it next to impossible to come up with anything to put in the non-specific and multi war memorials long box, becuase there are variables to describe the area, put in the marker text, report the weather, my mood when looking at it. Thankfully, most are in cemeteries and I can say "Michigan cemeteries are closed from sunset to sunrise by law". And really, thats one of my all-time favorite categories. If I didn't like the category so much, I would probibly get burnt out on pasting waymarks there.

This is a big problem for me also.  The more variables, the less I feel like putting elsewhere.  The things I would write in the description are already in the required variables and I don't feel like repeating myself.

Also, some categories (or listings) just don't lend themselves to a quality description.  I visited a park this weekend.  It was very tiny, no facilities other than a sign with dog poo bags and a bust of JFK.  I mentioned all this in the description.  I can't right a great description on nothing.  I googled the park and couldn't find out anything all the interesting.  I guess I could look up more for the bust but it's a park category, not a bust category.  (I might look up more to add to the JFK cat but at the moment, nothing jumped out when I googled it).

This thread is right on the money. Far too many WMs have little or nothing in the long description field. Granted, it's pretty hard to write something meaningful about the nearest burger chain or coffee spot. Still, it's not terribly hard to write at least a sentence or two about a location. If nothing else, go for the humor: "Yep, it's another McDonalds to add to the heap. This one has carefully maintained napkin dispensers, and the parking lot is typically full of SUVs."

I guess the philosphy here should be a variation of the "If you can't say something good..." dictum. If you can't *write* something good about a spot, don't make into a waymark.

I think people who post a page for the next number will get tired and move on.  I think they will find it hard to maintain an interest in the game that actually requires a fair amount of research, thought, and learning.  I tell local geocachers that are showing interest in waymarking to be prepared for an involved and captivating game.  I point out that the local cacher with about 400 hides is considered a goddess for all her efforts.  I tell them that it is much easier for me to prepare and submit most geocache pages for our caches than it is for me to prepare a quality waymarking page.  If one doesn't enjoy exploring and discovering, they will tire of this game.

One thing that does surprise me is that categories are still permitting waymarks without a photo.  I expect that very few of those are ever updated with a photo.  I've been surprised more than once with a waymark lacking a photo.  Digital cameras are a part of the game.  I know not everyone is a great photographer, but you should be able to upload a photo if the item is exciting enough to waymark.  Making certain that photos are there would discourage a few of the careless posters/number hunters.

I agree with previous posters that there are times when the variable fields make it difficult to add more to the long description without being redundant.  There are also some categories that are just difficult to provide descriptions.  Some McDonalds are cool looking, have different features, or are interesting for historical reasons.  Most are just McDonalds.

As a different note, I tend to think that my later submissions to a category are mostly better than my first.  I tend to get a better understanding of the category and its requirements when I post the first.  After that, if a category sticks in my mind as interesting, I tend to be more detailed when finding subsequent waymarks; otherwise, I just tend to not return to the category.

The one phrase I'm hearing more and more from our governemt, is something I have espoused professionally for years, and that is "transparency".

The theory behind transparency is that if we are honest with each other, the end result will be better. Sometimes it's difficult to be honest, because we are afraid of the consequences (Do these pants make me look fat?). The author I liked said when they delivered honest, but not necessarily good, news, they would Preface it with "In the spirit of transparency".

So, this message is two-fold. One being, if you have something to say to somone, find the nicest possible way to say it, and say it (in private). Being less than honest with each other is a disservice to everyone. If you bite your tongue and approve something that went against you grain, the person getting an approval without advice, and isn't growing from the experience. I like to think that an approver is more that someone hitting the "yes" box. I would like to think that they are someone who cares a little more about the category, and possibly has had more experience with researching the subject. Personally, I've learned a lot from approvers that challenged me.

The second message I have, in the spirit of transparency, I am very uncomfortable with people judging each other. This isn't a contest. Every negative thing against a generic person, I read a comment about me. And there are a lot of other people who are wondering if this was about them, or their waymark. And in the end, everyone is uncomfortable. You can have the same discussion of waymark quality without bringing into it the waymarker that used to be a geocacher, or the person who is only creating waymarks for a number or an icon. I hope I said this in the nicest possible way. I don't think I'm the only one who gets a knot in their stomach reading some forum posts.

globetrotters.us:

So, this message is two-fold. One being, if you have something to say to somone, find the nicest possible way to say it, and say it (in private). Being less than honest with each other is a disservice to everyone. If you bite your tongue and approve something that went against you grain, the person getting an approval without advice, and isn't growing from the experience. I like to think that an approver is more that someone hitting the "yes" box. I would like to think that they are someone who cares a little more about the category, and possibly has had more experience with researching the subject. Personally, I've learned a lot from approvers that challenged me.

I already know that BQ doesn't snap at anyone when reviewing waymarks, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I hate declining waymarks and look to approve waymarks as much as possible. If anything, my suggestions are made too diplomatically to be taken at the level of severity that they are. My Past Activity comment records in every category I'm involved in speak for that.

One thing that I do when the poster's username is unfamiliar is I check their profile. I look at the types of waymarks they've posted and consider how many of them there are. Someone who's posted 10 NRHP is going to have a better idea about Long Description writing than someone who's posted 10 Burger King. My priority is to keep them waymarking but encourage them to do as much as possible. I search for resources to provide more information, share it with them, and sometimes will make minor changes just so the changes are made and they can see how things can be.

You can have the same discussion of waymark quality without bringing into it the waymarker that used to be a geocacher, or the person who is only creating waymarks for a number or an icon. I hope I said this in the nicest possible way. I don't think I'm the only one who gets a knot in their stomach reading some forum posts.

BruceS is a Waymarker that used to be a Geocacher. Do you think he thinks we're talking about him?  Grid players and Number players exist. Everybody plays the game the way they enjoy it. They can grid and number monger without submitting waymarks that aren't quality listings. And if some people feel guilty when I say something general in the forum like stop plagiarising, well, I can hope that they'll all stop plagiarising already.

I'm sure officers can name names if we wanted to get dirty but there's no reason for that. I'd very politely tender-footed the topic on my blog a few days ago but this rant needed to be said and BQ was the man to do it.

the blue quasar:

In general I like to believe that people want to do a good job with things they create, especially when their name is attached to it. As many of you know, I try to make every effort to review with an attempt to include humour but today I couldn't even sign my name on most 'accepted logs'.... Why? Because there was such a low amount of text on the listings that I looked at. In short, I would be embarrassed if I wrote them. Half had either no long description at all or maybe had a single line with nothing informative or creative whatsoever. There is far more to Waymarking than just recording the GPS location and taking a picture, tossing a line or two that anyone can clearly see by looking at a map and then hitting "submit"... No one is saying it must be a work worthy of becoming a "Featured Waymark"... but I for one am tired of seeing such lackluster efforts. Waymarking is supposed to be entertaining, interesting and inspiring... and that can be done in every single category regardless of the focus theme. BQ

I, uh, feel your pain, brother.

This has been a really good thread.  Let's see if I can add something meaningful.

It is strange, because there is a thread on one of the other forums that is a rant about too much, being asked for by some categories.  I think there is a balance here.

But, first, my pet peeve, if I can share this without someone taking personal offence.  There have been a number of categories created recently with an absolute requirement for something "ANYTHING" in the long description.  I take a different approach.  I try to write a succinct description in the Quick Description, using the full 250 characters if needed.  I feel this is more important since this is what is visible when browsing without opening the waymark.  So, I have a lot of waymarks without a long description that I feel are quite adequate for that particular waymark, especially if there are also a lot of variables, as others have pointed out.  But, to satisfy the inflexible requirements in some categories, I've had to change my approach by writing one sentence Quick Descriptions which don't say much, and putting the rest in the long description.  Doesn't make sense to me.

I recently had a waymark returned, of a very simple marker, which, with the variables, was described in everyway possible, and I imbedded a clear close-up photo in the long description, but it was still rejected on the technicality that there was no long description.  There just wasn't anymore to say about this site!  And it was, in reality, well described and presented.  Now, to be fair, I had a reasonable exchange with the reviewer who finally accepted it.  And, I revised a couple others that had been declined.

Now, other times I've had waymarks returned, either declined or accepted, with the request for further information, and I've benefitted from it.  Sometimes the reviewer has pointed out a resource that I had overlooked or didn't know about.  These are really good exchanges from which we all learn.

I see quite a few waymarks from newcomers, and sometimes they just don't get it right.  I find that usually they respond well to patient instruction and advice and how to make a qood quality waymark.  I've seen some of these people turn into superb waymarkers whose posts are examples of what a good waymark looks like.

I try to be reasonable, and not make people jump through hoops, while still trying to maintain the category standards.  That is sometimes a difficult balance.  I try to be more inclusive than exclusive.  I take into account the nature of the category, first of all.  There are some categories wher I'll accept most anything, particularly the commericial categories.  Other categories, that deal with art and history, for instance, I will be more demanding on.  Then, I take into consideration the type of site.  Is it reasonable to expect that there is more information readily available?  I recognize that sometimes there just isn't a whole lot one can find out about a particular site.  Churches are an example.  Even if there is a web site, which often there is not, it is not unusual for it to have little that is relevant to the waymark.  Finally, I make a somewhat subject judgement as to whether the submitter has made a good faith attempt to fill in the variables and provide a decent description.  Sometimes it is obvious that someone has just snapped a picture and coordinates and said, "Here it is!"  If people use the private message box to explain things, it helps, by the way, if there extenuating circumstances.

Quick note about so-called place holders  -  I don't accept them either.  I send back a note thanking the person for the waymark and inviting them to resubmit it when they have the required photos, or whatever the case may be.

So, again, I think it is a balnce in trying to maintain a standard for high quality waymarks and not making people jump through unnecessary hoops or write an encyclopedia just to submit a waymark.

My problem, as a reviewer, comes when a waymark technically meets the minimum requirements, but is still less than I know it could and should be.  Sometimes the only thing I can do is accept it and request more information, or whatever, knowing that nine times out of ten it will never happen.

in addition to my distaste for place holder waymarks--dont submit till its done--what about place holder logs? no pics and a short (sometime sweet) mesage saying i was there. if the category specifies a pic i send a note, and often, the reply is, i will upload the pics when i get home......well, dont log it till you can upload a pic.....as SQ said, youll probably never get around to doing it. i have noticed recently ad walt disney (FL) many only log those that done require a pic. is this a form of armchair logging? not only do we need quality marks we need quality logs.....in the recent past i have revisited some spots from over a year ago, we only get one vivist, so i post a note with some new pics....nothing like adding to the waymark gallery.

one term that seems to be over looked is PEER REVIEW. i might over look something. i might not know about a resource (the caboose registry), and when i am told about such a wealth of info i am glad to include it in my resubmittal (or just add it if they realized that i am eager to please and the approved anyway).  lets say i posted a UMC in BFE. nothing was found except the address....some time later it gets a visit from a church member or other local resident, then they can help to fill in the missing details. maybe the church had a plaque made and the visitor uploads a pic so the text can be added to the description......

even the NRHP can be really wrong....how many of us have posted one that the list says the building is vacant, however, it has obviously had a tenant for a number of years and has been renovated to its former glory.....i still put what the list says (as per the instructions--'vacant'), but we all know thats a lie.....

(re: chapterhouseinc)

Lock me up in the stocks! I'm horrible about placeholder visit logs, I admit it!

I remember you chewed my butt out for not uploading pictures and as a photographer, I should've had them. Okay, well not really chewed out... more like opened a stern dialogue. And you were right. I had an issue with my CF card with the new camera (being that it was puny and after I got home from that trip I bought a new one). I'd run out of space and didn't want to delete anything. I remember giving exhaustive detail of the sites to you as proof that I was there but if you wanted to delete the visits, I'd understand.

I STILL haven't gotten a photo of Route 666 for that visit. I got a crappy one, but I don't want to upload a crappy one to the gallery.

If there's a descrepancy between the NRHP and reality, I'll note this in the Long Description. Heck, the NRHP being out of date is like a gift. It's automatic material for starting to write an interesting waymark!

I agree with SQ's approach and I know that he either has content in the Short Description and/or Long Description.  Me, I don't care which it is as long as one of them has it.  I have my application, other have different. 

 

Let's get boolean for a moment and use an OR gate.  Short OR Long = Good. 

Duplicating the Short in the Long is pointless.  Stressing it again, I don't expect some stellar award winning entry, but I do expect the appearance of effort to make a good listing.  I think we all can tell the difference when someone tries but might not have a lengthy description compared to someone that tosses a line or two for fluff or filler.  Like I said, I'm not asking for the world but as the "publisher", I do have some control over the quality of what is accepted in the categories in which I am an officer.

 

BQ

chapterhouseinc:

in addition to my distaste for place holder waymarks--dont submit till its done--what about place holder logs? no pics and a short (sometime sweet) mesage saying i was there

Well, this topic of visit logs has been hashed around a lot.  It is just my personal approach, but I really don't care about the logs.  Well, yes I do.  I mean I really enjoy reading the visit logs on my waymarks.  I read them in the email notice, but seldom go to the actual log entry, or check for photos.  I've even tried to eliminate photo requirements.

What I mean, is that I don't care about strict requirements.  If a person wants to write three words or three paragraph, add a ten photos or none, that is up to them, as far as I'm concerned.  It means whatever it means to them.  And, I've just got better things to do than to try to police visit logs  -  like working on my huge backlog, researching a special waymark, reviewing yours, etc. 

But, if a category, or an individual, wants to enforce specific requirements, then that's fine, too.  This is just my personal approach.

chapterhouseinc:

even the NRHP can be really wrong....how many of us have posted one that the list says the building is vacant, however, it has obviously had a tenant for a number of years and has been renovated to its former glory.....i still put what the list says (as per the instructions--'vacant'), but we all know thats a lie.....

I wanted to comment on this separately.  Yep, the site that we use, for its ease, has mistakes, and is NOT updated at all, it seems, and is not current.  Even new sites that have been listed for a year or more are often not there.

But, if the waymarker has more accurate or updated information, then they are encouraged to enter that.  At least that is my understanding as one who reviews a lot of these.  Just make a note of it in the private message box.  Usually, the only thing that should be changed is the current use (try to use the standard categories) or maybe an incorrect address, or typo.  I've seen all of those.

Maybe we need to clarify this in the description.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

i try to write something different in each log, unless it is a cross post. it is really bothersome to open each eamil to have the same short sentence in each log. i want the 'owner' to want to open each of my logs, see what tidbit i have to say about it. if i do fail to have a pic i state such and provide some sort of apology. i do usually log my own marks with a copy paste though.

RPH: yes, i do remember sending some harsh notes, but it seemed that you already knew better. i have only deleted logs pertaining to the 'archived' armchair log thread long ago (he logged them again months later anyway).

i too have no time for policing logs, want to help me with my backlog?, i make people aware of the 'value of pictures' in logs and welcome them to the game. i often hint that they should post some so i have marks to visit .

In general, I find that human being will bend over backwards to please other humans, if they know they can please them.

On the flip side, when people feel controlled, they will do anything they can to loosten the reins, wherever possible.

Applying this to waymarking, if you tell someone they can please you, and how to please you, they will try. If a person feels the are doing it just so they don't get denied, they will do the minimum possible.

If I had access to the waymarking database, I'd like to run statistics of which categories had more words in the long description, and look at the wordings of the category description. I'd be most curious to see if there actually are categories that better results.

I hear catgory owners that are unhappy with their long descriptions. Is there anyone out there that is happy with the waymarks they are getting? Would you share your secret to success?

 

globetrotters.us:

I hear catgory owners that are unhappy with their long descriptions. Is there anyone out there that is happy with the waymarks they are getting? Would you share your secret to success?

I'm generally happy with the submissions to my two categories.
Military Surplus Stores and Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins.
Especially the latter. I don't remember anyone submitting one with a lousy description, though I'm not going to spoil my mood by going to see.  That's not to say that we've accepted every submission...but the denials haven't been due to a bad description.

I don't know WHY though.  I'd like to keep 'em that way.

The verbiage in the Surplus Stores submissions is usually pretty sparse. But I created that cat as a utility, so those are fine.

globetrotters.us:

I hear catgory owners that are unhappy with their long descriptions. Is there anyone out there that is happy with the waymarks they are getting? Would you share your secret to success?

Headstones of Centenarians gets great long descriptions.

I have no complaints about the LDs on Outdoor Altars.

Urban Legends and Superstitions has excellent LDs.

Statues of Religious Figures does rather well, too.

Even the Graves of the Unknown waymarks that we've had to decline had great long descriptions and the ones that are there are fantastic.

Birdwatching Locations is one of my favourite categories to see waymarks in and I think it was just dumb luck that I got to write it.

I could really go on. Most of my categories have great submissions and I get to thank and praise and use lots of exclaimation points when I review.

But I regret making Church Building categories. A number of people treat them like fast food chain categories. They don't care. There's no respect for the history or the architecture or the community. They're just plopping down another waymark. If it weren't for a certain milestone waymarker submitting 50+ quality waymarks each to those categories, I might be in a sour mood about it.

But for the ones who know how to write a LD in a Church Building cat, I have lots of "!!!!" And I think they know they're loved.

What it comes down to is that the officer doesn't have any control over whether or not the poster cares about the waymark. The reviewing officer will encourage, be friendly, be helpful, provide references and make recommendations. If the poster cares, they'll make the effort. If the poster doesn't care, they'll do the base minimum... whatever they think will get the reviewer to approve the thing already so they can be done with it and move on. So there's no reviewer's secret. This is something that only a poster can do.

Redneck Parrotheads:

But for the ones who know how to write a LD in a Church Building cat, I have lots of "!!!!" And I think they know they're loved.

I know who your talking about! I look to their waymarks as an example.

What I would love to see is a "How to write a good church waymark" by our favorite church waymarker.

For me, it's hit or miss. Somtimes I can find a wealth of information, and sometimes I'm scratching in the dirt. For our peer, all their churches are good. I'm sure it's not just luck to happen to be driving by things that have easily available information. It's probibly a lot of hard work and a process of research that is repeatable.

A 'job aide' or template geared toward churches would go a long way. How and where to find information would be nice. Hints on a good 'church' picture would be helpful. I use the waywardwaymarking way info regularly, and a Church section would be really nice. Not to be picky, but I'd like to see this all in one place, and not scattered through forums where I have to remember where I saw it. My wish list 'church job aide' would be a single source of information for writing a church waymark, as valuable to a beginner as to an expereinced waymarker.

 

globetrotters.us:

 My wish list 'church job aide' would be a single source of information for writing a church waymark, as valuable to a beginner as to an expereinced waymarker.

 

This is where the category specific forums can be helpful.  In the right hand side on a category page there is an option to Post a Forum Topic about that specific category or waymark for that matter. It is a cool feature that as yet is really underused. In a few of my categories I have posted additional information or resources that I didn't want to clutter up the long description of the cat but still wanted to be available. Then I placed a link on the category page to the forum post.

For the example above, the topic, "How to Create a Great Church Waymark", could link to a permenant post in the category forum explaining the process. No need to remember or go offsite. There it is right there.

My best example (in my mind but still far from perfect) are these forum posts for the Zippy Category.

Links to locations in the United States

Links to locations outside of the United States

There may also be some who do not know or are unaware of specific things about a Waymark.
I am no Architecture Specialist.
Some do not know how to measure...
Some things are just stumbled upon.

But I try to ask if I find anything that does not look right.

I also have been asked to review my Waymarks to fit correctly.

I do not like to see no long description at least say what you were there doing or something about it.

But like has been stated it is
YOUR WAYMARK it reflects you.
So all I have to do to get a pretty good picture of what you are like is to review your Waymarks...and geocaches if you have any.

I hope that others like the way they reflect upon themselves and hopefully give good reflections to others.