Groundspeak Portal

We've talked about the concept of cross-listing in two or more Categories when a location meets the requirements of all....

But there are a few Categories that are very specific and all the listings in it could also fit into a much more generic or broader Category.

For example: 
- All of the National Parks (US) could be listed in National Parks of the World - as has been mentioned previously.
- Many of the World War I Memorials could be listed in the Non-Specific Veteran Memorials
- Many of the Monarchs of the World could be listed in the Statues of a Famous Person

To me, this is a little different than two unrelated categories that happen to share something in common at limited locations.

Would it be beneficial for the specific natured Categories to only allow listings that match their exact criteria, and more importantly the broad Categories not allow listings that fit into the more specific ones?

Thoughts?

I encountered this by accident when I was submitting a WW II Memorial, and didn't understand that because it also listed Korea that I shouldn't have entered it in WW II Memorials at all.  That I totally agree with, but shouldn't this be the same for all 'closely related' Categories?

BQ

Would that mean that if a category that fits inside another category gets approved, you'd have to go back to the first category and revise it to exclude the second category?

JimmyEv:

Would that mean that if a category that fits inside another category gets approved, you'd have to go back to the first category and revise it to exclude the second category?

Both versions have already happened, so that is what I am asking.

The other issue is how can the 'broad ranged' Cat determine if a submission should really fit into the 'narrow ranged' Cat?

eg; Land-Locked Lighthouses (narrow) was created first, and Coastal Lighthouses (broad) was second.  Obviously all the submissions in LLL will fit into CL (if you read the descriptions for both), but is it realistic to expect CL's Officers to deflect listings over to LLL?

There are four possible options:

• Narrow Cat exists, Broad is created - Does Broad accept ones from Narrow?
• Broad Cat exists, Narrow is created - Does Broad stop accepting ones that fit Narrow?
• Narrow Cat exists, Broad is created - Does Narrow stop accepting ones that fit Broad?
• Broad Cat exists, Narrow is created - Does Narrow accept ones from Broad?

The first two related to what Broad accepts is easy to visualize, but the last two are not as easy.

So some fake examples...
For #3... should "Harley Davidson Dealerships" accept Motorcycle Dealerships that sell Harley's, Honda's and Yamaha's once "Motorcycle Dealerships" is created?
For #4... should "Motorcycle Dealerships" accept new listings for Exclusively Harley Davidson Dealerships after "Harley Davidson Dealerships" is created?

Even still... how could this possibly be resolved?  This seems rather like the discussion regarding the location of certain Cats within the Directory.

BQ

I would say it all depends on how the categories are worded, and how the category officers want to handle the issue on a case-by-case (or category-by-category) basis, really.

I help out with 2 categories that fit this issue:
Multi-War / Non-Specific Memorials (broad)
World War II Memorials (narrow, obviously)

The Multi-War category was specifically created to allow fit of all those memorials that didn't fit anywhere else, because they have several wars listed, OR because they have NO wars listed at all.  The World War II memorials category was worded to specifically exclude multi-war displays, even if they do contain a plaque for World War II. 
Would other War Categories, such as a World War I display within a Multi-War display be able to be listed in both?  I have no idea, since I'm not involved in the World War I group.  I have no problem with it, though - if that is how they want to administer their listings.  I will, however, deflect any WW2 submissions that are part of a larger display or memorial for more than one war into the Multi-War category, however. 
To answer your question about the Harleys:
Were I an officer for both of those, and the question came up:

1) If we'd already created the category to include any dealership PROVIDED it sold Harleys, then yes, barring an officer vote to change the category description.  Otherwise, if we'd restricted it to solely Harleys-Only dealerships in the first place, then it wouldn't be an issue anyway.
2) Why not?  If the category is broad enough to say, "All Motorcycle Dealerships Welcome", then sure.

For our categories, we specifically say "If it's a multi-war display, it's able to be listed here."   If the Korea Memorial group, or the WW1 memorial group or whoever also has a category that'll accept it because part of the display has a Korean War memorial, or a WW1 memorial, etc. then sure, it can be listed in both.
For the WW2 one, we specifically excluded Multi-War displays, however.  Probably because Multi-War displays was already available; if it hadn't, then we'd probably have created it to allow any memorial display as long as it contained at least one section for WW2.

the blue quasar:

JimmyEv:

Would that mean that if a category that fits inside another category gets approved, you'd have to go back to the first category and revise it to exclude the second category?

Both versions have already happened, so that is what I am asking.

The other issue is how can the 'broad ranged' Cat determine if a submission should really fit into the 'narrow ranged' Cat?

eg; Land-Locked Lighthouses (narrow) was created first, and Coastal Lighthouses (broad) was second.  Obviously all the submissions in LLL will fit into CL (if you read the descriptions for both), but is it realistic to expect CL's Officers to deflect listings over to LLL?

There are four possible options:

• Narrow Cat exists, Broad is created - Does Broad accept ones from Narrow? Yes
  
• Broad Cat exists, Narrow is created - Does Broad stop accepting ones that fit Narrow? No
  
• Narrow Cat exists, Broad is created - Does Narrow stop accepting ones that fit Broad? No
  
• Broad Cat exists, Narrow is created - Does Narrow accept ones from Broad? Yes
  

The first two related to what Broad accepts is easy to visualize, but the last two are not as easy.

So some fake examples...
For #3... should "Harley Davidson Dealerships" accept Motorcycle Dealerships that sell Harley's, Honda's and Yamaha's once "Motorcycle Dealerships" is created? No
For #4... should "Motorcycle Dealerships" accept new listings for Exclusively Harley Davidson Dealerships after "Harley Davidson Dealerships" is created? Yes

Even still... how could this possibly be resolved?  This seems rather like the discussion regarding the location of certain Cats within the Directory.

BQ

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.

This will make more sense in the future when we implement the idea of "relationships" between waymarks in the directory. This will also solve the worry of having an entire page of search results displaying the same location over and over. For now we should try to be less self-conscious about the waymarks we approve in our categories, focusing only on their suitability for placement in that particular category.

opinionate:

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.

This will make more sense in the future when we implement the idea of "relationships" between waymarks in the directory. This will also solve the worry of having an entire page of search results displaying the same location over and over. For now we should try to be less self-conscious about the waymarks we approve in our categories, focusing only on their suitability for placement in that particular category.

Should a Narrow category (Michigan Centennial Farms) preclude a Broader category (Centennial/Century Farms)?  Should the broader category explicitly deny those that can be listed int the narrow category? (farms in Michigan)

BruceS:

opinionate:

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.

This will make more sense in the future when we implement the idea of "relationships" between waymarks in the directory. This will also solve the worry of having an entire page of search results displaying the same location over and over. For now we should try to be less self-conscious about the waymarks we approve in our categories, focusing only on their suitability for placement in that particular category.

Should a Narrow category (Michigan Centennial Farms) preclude a Broader category (Centennial/Century Farms)?  Should the broader category explicitly deny those that can be listed int the narrow category? (farms in Michigan)

 

If I'm reading Opionate's post correctly, the broader category shouldn't rely on anything defined in the narrower category, i.e. it should still allow waymarks that could be listed in the narrower category.  But I don't know if that would preclude creating the broader category.

 

It seems to me that the criteria guidelines we use to vote on category creation are being knocked down one-by-one.  First it was Redundant, then Standout, now Global.  If things don't have to be Global, then you'd have to also disregard the Prevalance criteria.  Maybe the only guidelines should be that the category be understandable, people could actually put waymarks in it, and it's not exactly the same as another category?

Based upon OpinioNate's post, which I agree with then I must follow up using PAWSitractions cited examples

I have in the past submitted any War Memorials to all three Categories that I know of. 

• WWI Memorials
• WWII Memorials
• Non-Specific Memorials

So, if the Memorial has a dedication to WWI as well as WWII then it should apply to all three Categories...  That's how I'm reading that.  This is not inline with the email discussion that PAWS and I had, and I agreed with her ruling that she made based upon the WWII Category Description.

However I can see a "narrow" Category stating something to the effect of and exclusive clause.  As in "You may list any WWII Memorial that does not have dedications to other wars.  The Memorial must be exclusive to WWII only."

So if I read OpinioNate correctly, his view is that if any listing fits into a 'narrow' Category it must also fit into the 'broad' Category, and a 'narrow' Category should not decline a listing that can also fit into a more 'broad' Category that already exists.

If I get "DAIRY QUEEN" up and running... all listings in Dairy Queen should also be accepted in Ice Cream Palours (which is not mine) ???  That's not why I'm asking, but it does apply to what I'm trying to resolve.

BQ