Groundspeak Portal

Early next week we intend to release some new features on Waymarking.com. I'd like to briefly introduce these changes so you'll know what to expect.

We have made a number of alterations to the original plan outlined in this post. The major difference is the postponement of any kind of points system. We're in the early stages of planning a reputation engine that we hope will work with all of Groundspeak's sites, so releasing our "points lite" version would be premature. However, parts of this code will still be used behind the scenes. For instance, every action you take on the site will be recorded and saved in the database. This includes statistics for most of the actions you have taken since the site was in Beta.

Uncategorized Waymarks (formerly known as "Orphan Waymarks" or just "Marks")

These are waymarks submitted without a category. From the home page is a new link to submit a waymark. Once on the creation page for waymarks you'll find a new dropdown category control that can be used to select the category you want or it can be left blank. When a waymark is submitted without a category it will be placed in a new list called "New Uncategorized Waymarks". These waymarks will not be visible in a regular waymark search. Anyone can view this list, and Premium Members will be able to help categorize the waymarks in it.

Adding a category to someone else's uncategorized waymark is identical to creating your own new waymark, with the exception that the coordinates, description and other fields will be populated with the original user's data. All of these fields can be modified by you before submission. In addition, it will be the categorizer's responsibility to fill in the variables, since the original submitter will not have known in which category it may end up (and therefore what variables are required).

Once submitted and approved, the original uncategorized waymark is removed from the "New..." list. The resulting categorized waymark recognizes the user who originally contributed the proto-waymark with a credit on the page.

Although the original uncategorized waymark is removed from the "New..." list it can still be accessed and spawn other waymarks if you know the URL. In this way multiple waymarks can be created from a single uncategorized waymark.

Edit Waymark

The original plan was to make all variables optional while allowing non-owner users to fill in the empty fields. We are no longer going to remove required variables. Instead, we have expanded the concept of editing variables to include the entire waymark.

Any user may edit a waymark, but some will require Group review first. The pending reviews will appear in the regular waymark review queue and each field that was edited can be approved or denied on an individual basis. The person doing the editing must supply a reason for each field they modify.

• Basic user: Edit waymark and variables require Group review for all changes
• Premium user: Edit waymark and previously answered variables require Group review, unanswered variables via a visit log can be edited without review*
• Owner: No review necessary for any edits
• Category Officer: No review necessary for any edits assuming he has the necessary permissions

*Any unanswered waymark variables will be presented to Premium Members when a visit log is posted. These will necessarily be optional variables or the waymark would never have been published.

Advanced Search

There is now a link to an advanced search on the home page which allows you to begin a search from a blank filter. 

What Else

There are other smaller fixes included which I will outline on release day. These include a few bug fixes, minor tweaks etc.

Once we have vetted the live release and are comfortable with the performance, we will begin work on the next task: Group functionality (aka deadbeat leaders).

Thank you for your patience while we have been working on this release. The long stretch between this and the last release has not escaped our notice, and we intend to increase the frequency of updates to the site in the coming days. Happy Waymarking!

Hooray. Nice to hear from you guys.

We're in the early stages of planning a reputation engine that we hope will work with all of Groundspeak's sites, so releasing our "points lite" version would be premature.

This is intriguing. Do the folks in the other forum know about this? I can imagine a feeding frenzy over there when this comes about. I also saw a post over there in the other forum about the migration of the forum to a new forum. I would love to see a post from you about that as well but that is off topic here.

Uncategorized Waymarks (formerly known as "Orphan Waymarks" or just "Marks")

It will be interesting to see if this is a boon or a headache.

Edit Waymark

I like this concept and how you have it arranged. I especially like that some edits have to be reviewed.

I don't quite grasp the required variable comments but it will be clear soon......

Thanks again for all you guys do up there in the Emerald City.

This will be interesting to see and use!

Couple of quick thoughts/questions:

Uncategorized Waymarks:

1) As a waymark creator, I like the idea of being able create uncategorized categories.

2) As a waymark reviewer, I have some concerns. For example, I hope this feature doesn't result in category 'slamming' - a practice in which people would be so anxious to get credit for submitting  nearly-completed waymarks found in the uncategorized list that they'd try to force it into the first category that looked to them like it might even remotely fit. The 'uncategorized' feature will quickly lose support from the category managers if they find themselves having to frequently review, and then reject, non-fitting waymark being pushed over from the uncategorized list.

Edit Waymarks: I can see the value, and understand the intent of this feature, but it sounds like yet more work for the category managers.

I have two questions about the Edit Waymarks feature -

1) Can non-owners submit changes to any part of an existing waymark (coordinates, descriptions, variables)?

2) When you say submitted changes from basic users will "require Group review", does that mean the waymark will just show up on the current 'needs review' list for the group just like a new waymark does today?

3) How easy will it be for the group to see exactly what is being changed (proposed for a change)? Will the group doing the review of the proposed changes be able to conveniently see both the suggested changes and the original text/values in a single place? Will the changes be highlighted so it will easy to spot the differences being proposed?

I'd like to believe these new features represent a positive step for Waymarking, but I think I'll need to hang on to a bit of healthy skepticism for the moment - at least until I see how they work in practice.

And while the new features sound interesting, to be honest, I'd have rather seen development efforts go into improving some of the group management and waymark review tools (like those discussed in several forums topics) first. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate all the effort being put into this hobby by the development team, and I understand that we don't get to choose priorities. I'm just sayin'.

I'm also concerned about editing waymarks. Both as a reviewer and waymark owner. Sounds like it could be a headache when you get flooded by a bunch of waymarks with changes in coordinates etc.. Also what about abuse? We can see with Wikipedia, that sometimes editing goes afoul.

If someone edits a waymark by adding three whole paragraphs, when does the waymark stop being the waymark owners and starts being a collaboration? If the waymark is denied, does the owner have to resubmit it, or does it revert back to the original waymark?

A few questions I think that need to be answered more directly are the following:

Who is listed as the submitter of an uncategorized waymark when it is categorized?  The original submitter? or the categorizer?    From the opening post it appears that it will be the categorizer, and if this case a person will be listed as a submitter/owner of the waymark when they have in fact have never been to the location and did nothing except know what category to submit to.  I don't view this as being helpful to new people who are the people that I think this is suppose to help, they do the work but don't get the credit.

On edits.  Is the waymark owner notified that an edit is either pending or is being accepted on their waymark?   How is the the group to know what information is correct so that they can approve it?

good points from bruce and sao....

Okay, here are my questions and concerns, from both a waymark creator and reviewer perspective.

opinionate:

From the home page is a new link to submit a waymark. Once on the creation page for waymarks you'll find a new dropdown category control that can be used to select the category you want or it can be left blank.

Will this be a new function for creating ALL waymarks, or will we still be able to go directly to the cateogory?  Certainly don't need an additional step in the process.

opinionate:

Adding a category to someone else's uncategorized waymark is identical to creating your own new waymark, with the exception that the coordinates, description and other fields will be populated with the original user's data. All of these fields can be modified by you before submission. In addition, it will be the categorizer's responsibility to fill in the variables, since the original submitter will not have known in which category it may end up (and therefore what variables are required).

So, a waymark created without a category will have NO variables at all?  And, when a category is selected, the variables for that category will pop up?  Maintaining the status of the fields as either required or optional?

Seems to be a huge problem here, unless I'm missing something.  How would I know what values to put in the variable fields for someone else's waymark?   Sometimes the information can be obtained only by a personal visit.  Sure, maybe the information is conveniently provided in the description, or maybe it is something that can be researched like a physical address, URL, etc.  I just see this as a formidable obstacle.

opinionate:

Although the original uncategorized waymark is removed from the "New..." list it can still be accessed and spawn other waymarks if you know the URL. In this way multiple waymarks can be created from a single uncategorized waymark.

So, what is this??  A backdoor way finally to clone a waymark into multiple categories?  If multiple waymarks are made from a single uncategorized waymark, does the photo gallery carry over?  So, if I know that I have a site that will go into seven categories, can I create an uncategorized waymark, then create seven separate waymarks in different categories, editing each one and adding variables for each particular category?  All I've got to say is, "WOW!"   Sounds too good to be true, so I must be missing something here.

opinionate:

Any user may edit a waymark, but some will require Group review first. The pending reviews will appear in the regular waymark review queue and each field that was edited can be approved or denied on an individual basis. The person doing the editing must supply a reason for each field they modify.

Pardon me, but this seems like a reviewer's nightmare!

Here into my category comes a waymark, originally created by someone who doesn't know enough, either about what he/she is waymarking or about my category to get it right, then modified by someone else.  And, each edited field has to be reviewed and approved or denied.  Where will the reasons be for each field?  Short text box next to the field, one single multi-line text box?  Just trying to sort through that is enough to make me want to hang up my spurs. 

I see so many waymarks already where people can't seem to read the category description and posting requirements and get it right, that the prospect of adding something this complicated, sounds daunting.  If one field is missing, or some other requirement, then I assume the whole waymark goes back to the editor.  What if he can't or won't edit it again and resubmit it?  The waymark just dies, or is it returned to the pool?  Some people are conscientious about revising and resubmitting declined waymarks, and others just won't bother.  I could see a lot of waymarks getting lost in this process.

I could be wrong about this, from a reviewer's perspective, and I guess I won't know until I see how it actually works out in practice.

opinionate:

• Basic user: Edit waymark and variables require Group review for all changes
• Premium user: Edit waymark and previously answered variables require Group review, unanswered variables via a visit log can be edited without review*
• Owner: No review necessary for any edits
• Category Officer: No review necessary for any edits assuming he has the necessary permissions

Well, I'm not sure I'm in favor of basic members editing these uncategorized waymarks.  But, it sounds as if recategorized submission from both basic and premium members require review. By "group review" do you mean review by a group vote, or by a single officer with review privileges?  How can you separate review of the whole waymark and review of changes?  I think we're looking at the waymark as a whole and all of the elements from name format, coordinates, quick and long descriptions and the variables.  If it was created as an uncategorized waymark, then we would know that ALL of the variables were added by the new submitter.

I think allowing even premium members to edit variables via a visit log without those going through a review process (NOT that I would want to review them) is an open door for abuse.  We occasionally get armchair visitors as it is.  Who would get the visit logs - the originator of the waymark, or the editor who submitted it to the category?  I think it is better to leave the system the way it is in this regard.  If a visitor has additional information or corrections for a waymark, that is just included in the visit log and it is up to the waymark owner to make any modifications or additions to the waymark.

I think the issue of waymark "ownership" does get problematical.  If I understand the design, the waymark will bear some sort of reference to the original creator, but actually be "owned" by whomever actually first submits it to a category.  Seems like a cheap way to get a waymark.  I think the original creator should maintain "ownership" with the submitting editor getting the footnote.  Maybe when the statistics are generated, there should be an entirely separated column for "Uncategorized Waymrks Edited and Submitted."  That way each person gets credit.  Just a thought.

opinionate:

Once we have vetted the live release and are comfortable with the performance, we will begin work on the next task: Group functionality (aka deadbeat leaders).

Hallelujah for that! 

I think this is a huge turn-off for new waymarkers and a headache for the rest of us!

opinionate:

Thank you for your patience while we have been working on this release. The long stretch between this and the last release has not escaped our notice, and we intend to increase the frequency of updates to the site in the coming days. Happy Waymarking!

Hey, we know it is a LOT of work to manage this site, and we value what you and the lackeys do!  You've added a lot of cool features, and if some of the remaining major issues can be tackled, the next 200,000 waymarks will be even more fun then the first ones!

cache_test_dummies:

Couple of quick thoughts/questions:

2) As a waymark reviewer, I have some concerns. For example, I hope this feature doesn't result in category 'slamming' - a practice in which people would be so anxious to get credit for submitting  nearly-completed waymarks found in the uncategorized list that they'd try to force it into the first category that looked to them like it might even remotely fit. The 'uncategorized' feature will quickly lose support from the category managers if they find themselves having to frequently review, and then reject, non-fitting waymark being pushed over from the uncategorized list.

There are still many things we don't know about how this tool will be used. We'll just have to wait and hope for the best. If it's not working we can address that.

cache_test_dummies:

1) Can non-owners submit changes to any part of an existing waymark (coordinates, descriptions, variables)?

Yes.

cache_test_dummies:

2) When you say submitted changes from basic users will "require Group review", does that mean the waymark will just show up on the current 'needs review' list for the group just like a new waymark does today?

Also yes.

cache_test_dummies:

3) How easy will it be for the group to see exactly what is being changed (proposed for a change)? Will the group doing the review of the proposed changes be able to conveniently see both the suggested changes and the original text/values in a single place? Will the changes be highlighted so it will easy to spot the differences being proposed?

The old value displays in red, and the new value in green, with the editor's comment directly below. There is an approve/deny radio button for each proposed change.

cache_test_dummies:

I'd like to believe these new features represent a positive step for Waymarking, but I think I'll need to hang on to a bit of healthy skepticism for the moment - at least until I see how they work in practice.

And while the new features sound interesting, to be honest, I'd have rather seen development efforts go into improving some of the group management and waymark review tools (like those discussed in several forums topics) first. Don't get me wrong - I appreciate all the effort being put into this hobby by the development team, and I understand that we don't get to choose priorities. I'm just sayin'.

I can respect this. It's a major pain point right now.

saopaulo1:

If someone edits a waymark by adding three whole paragraphs, when does the waymark stop being the waymark owners and starts being a collaboration? If the waymark is denied, does the owner have to resubmit it, or does it revert back to the original waymark?

I've never really understood how one can "own" a waymark anyway. I'm sure this is mainly our fault for not choosing terminology more carefully. You discover a location and write about it. That's more of an explorer or documentarian role than a form of ownership.

BruceS:

Who is listed as the submitter of an uncategorized waymark when it is categorized?  The original submitter? or the categorizer?   

The categorizer.

BruceS:

From the opening post it appears that it will be the categorizer, and if this case a person will be listed as a submitter/owner of the waymark when they have in fact have never been to the location and did nothing except know what category to submit to.  I don't view this as being helpful to new people who are the people that I think this is suppose to help, they do the work but don't get the credit.

They may or may not have visited the location; we don't know. In some cases, and because certain categories have required variables, it will *only* be someone who has visited the location who can categorize an uncategorized waymark.

I disagree that "they do the work but don't get the credit". They will have done little more than record a set of coordinates. Perhaps there is the sense that these uncategorized waymarks will burst forth as fully fleshed-out waymarks, with only the category missing. I predict the opposite: mostly ragged, half-arsed waypoints with no pictures. That creates a lot of work for the person who goes to the trouble of creating a legit waymark.

BruceS:

On edits.  Is the waymark owner notified that an edit is either pending or is being accepted on their waymark? 

Not at the moment, but I brought this up with Sean yesterday as something we may have overlooked.

BruceS:

How is the the group to know what information is correct so that they can approve it?

Inside knowledge, educated guesses, trusted submitters and web verification are some ways. If the reason given for a change is not trustworthy it can be denied. If bad information makes it to the live waymark hopefully someone will suggest an edit.

silverquill:

Okay, here are my questions and concerns, from both a waymark creator and reviewer perspective.

Will this be a new function for creating ALL waymarks, or will we still be able to go directly to the cateogory?  Certainly don't need an additional step in the process.

The original method for submitting waymarks is the basically the same. One small change is the ability to remove the category and switch to another. Submit waymark on the Murals category page -> remove category -> add Graffiti category is an option.

silverquill:

So, a waymark created without a category will have NO variables at all?  And, when a category is selected, the variables for that category will pop up?  Maintaining the status of the fields as either required or optional?

Yes.

silverquill:

Seems to be a huge problem here, unless I'm missing something.  How would I know what values to put in the variable fields for someone else's waymark?   Sometimes the information can be obtained only by a personal visit.  Sure, maybe the information is conveniently provided in the description, or maybe it is something that can be researched like a physical address, URL, etc.  I just see this as a formidable obstacle.

In those cases the orphaned waymark will just have to wait until someone with personal knowledge can rescue it. Either that or the original submitter goes back and finishes it.

silverquill:

So, what is this??  A backdoor way finally to clone a waymark into multiple categories?

You cannot clone your own waymark so a sockpuppet is needed, which we discourage. For people clever enough to realize this workaround it will tide us over until a more purposeful feature is created.

silverquill:

Pardon me, but this seems like a reviewer's nightmare!

Here into my category comes a waymark, originally created by someone who doesn't know enough, either about what he/she is waymarking or about my category to get it right, then modified by someone else.  And, each edited field has to be reviewed and approved or denied.  Where will the reasons be for each field?  Short text box next to the field, one single multi-line text box?  Just trying to sort through that is enough to make me want to hang up my spurs. 

Don't freak out just yet. This feature is practically hidden from all but the power users. Also, only Premium Members can categorize waymarks so that cuts down on the drive by waymarking. If it's a disaster we'll make corrections.

silverquill:

I see so many waymarks already where people can't seem to read the category description and posting requirements and get it right, that the prospect of adding something this complicated, sounds daunting.  If one field is missing, or some other requirement, then I assume the whole waymark goes back to the editor.  What if he can't or won't edit it again and resubmit it?  The waymark just dies, or is it returned to the pool?  Some people are conscientious about revising and resubmitting declined waymarks, and others just won't bother.  I could see a lot of waymarks getting lost in this process.

Removing the uncategorized marks from the queue after a waymark is spawned is just a temporary solution since we didn't have time to add a search filter. Later we'll add the option to show all uncategorized waymarks regardless of their history.

silverquill:

Well, I'm not sure I'm in favor of basic members editing these uncategorized waymarks. 

They cannot. Only Premium Members can categorize and edit uncategorized waymarks.

silverquill:

But, it sounds as if recategorized submission from both basic and premium members require review. By "group review" do you mean review by a group vote, or by a single officer with review privileges?  How can you separate review of the whole waymark and review of changes?  I think we're looking at the waymark as a whole and all of the elements from name format, coordinates, quick and long descriptions and the variables. 

I mean review by an officer, not a vote. In the queue will be a special type of review called out by "[Waymark Edit] SuchandSuch" instead of "[Waymark review] SuchandSuch" so you know it's not a review of the complete waymark.

silverquill:

If it was created as an uncategorized waymark, then we would know that ALL of the variables were added by the new submitter.

This is a good point. I will add a feature request to show which variables were created by the original submitter, and which by the categorizer. It will help us know how much to trust the information.

silverquill:

I think allowing even premium members to edit variables via a visit log without those going through a review process (NOT that I would want to review them) is an open door for abuse.  We occasionally get armchair visitors as it is.

 
It's possible. We'll have to wait and see.

silverquill:

Who would get the visit logs - the originator of the waymark, or the editor who submitted it to the category? 

The guy who submitted it gets the logs - it's his waymark now. As an illustration of this, when a categorized waymark is denied it becomes a saved unfinished waymark.

silverquill:

I think the issue of waymark "ownership" does get problematical.  If I understand the design, the waymark will bear some sort of reference to the original creator, but actually be "owned" by whomever actually first submits it to a category. 

You'll get no arguments from me here. It is a false notion as I mentioned above. Don't get me wrong - I respect the work that goes into creating a waymark and think a person should be properly appreciated for going to the trouble, but to quote Ernest Goes to Camp, "Who can own a tree?".

silverquill:

Seems like a cheap way to get a waymark. 

See my response to BruceS.

silverquill:

I think the original creator should maintain "ownership" with the submitting editor getting the footnote.  Maybe when the statistics are generated, there should be an entirely separated column for "Uncategorized Waymrks Edited and Submitted."  That way each person gets credit.  Just a thought.

It was originally this way and we swapped it. I think if you take into account my reasons for doing so above, and think about it for as long as we have, you may agree. Ultimately, only time will tell.

Time for some coffee...

yes, i think more thought could be put into the 'mark owner' aspect of this.

and also the backburnered 'points system'...

instead of all the ownership issues, to poster (uncategorized) maintains posession, then under 'owner' a 'categorized by' (or put it next to the reviewed by line)

would this be a new stat in the box:
posted: XXXX
visited: XXXX
categorized: XXXX.

i think the process as a whole is good, a n00b can post something then 'we' could show them that that could fit in X categories.

why not have 'us' link it to categories, then the poster must then reedit to fit into that categories paramaters (description/variables).

i concur that a basic/premium member line should be developed. dont you want people to want to be PMs? who knows someone might upgrade just so they can edit a posted mark from their childhood......

what about a peer review log type for existing marks?

and the whole 'if you know the url' you can crossorganize sounds a lot like the issues being discussed about archived/legacy/whatever you want to call them marks.

chapterhouseinc:

what about a peer review log type for existing marks?

Can you elaborate on this?

I think the ownership comes from that you put work into a waymark. It's like if Wikipedia articles had the original starters name and then it turns into a big collaboration. How much is really your work.

If denied, do a pre-existing waymark go back to the original information, or does the owner need to fix all the correction and resubmit it?

I think that maybe if edits are done to a pre-existing waymark, then it should go through the owner first to cut through any abuse.

well, for starters:
-a new coords log (for those marks that move)
-a i have a [new] link to add log
-a i have some factual info to be included in the waymark.

and others?

similar to a cache needs maintanance log. yes, similar to posting a note, but with all this talk about moving/updating/editing marks, shouldnt there be some sort of classification for these 'special' notes?

this could also be reported to the group--as in, if the mark owner doesnt take the initiative OR an eager beaver wants to make the updates--one would know that there is something that could be added to/corrected on the mark in question.

ie:
-one of my 2005 era NRHPs that has no description whatsoever
-my penny smasher moved next door (i mentioned this elsewhere) or the Indie Art Store moved several blocks down the street
-the church now has a website
-i found the address for the buisness
-admission price changed

--------
and how about this OT idea? the visit log i recieve in my email has the date the marker entered for his log, not the 'current' date.

opinionate:

BruceS:

Who is listed as the submitter of an uncategorized waymark when it is categorized?  The original submitter? or the categorizer?   

The categorizer.

BruceS:

From the opening post it appears that it will be the categorizer, and if this case a person will be listed as a submitter/owner of the waymark when they have in fact have never been to the location and did nothing except know what category to submit to.  I don't view this as being helpful to new people who are the people that I think this is suppose to help, they do the work but don't get the credit.

They may or may not have visited the location; we don't know. In some cases, and because certain categories have required variables, it will *only* be someone who has visited the location who can categorize an uncategorized waymark.

I disagree that "they do the work but don't get the credit". They will have done little more than record a set of coordinates. Perhaps there is the sense that these uncategorized waymarks will burst forth as fully fleshed-out waymarks, with only the category missing. I predict the opposite: mostly ragged, half-arsed waypoints with no pictures. That creates a lot of work for the person who goes to the trouble of creating a legit waymark.

If the uncategorized waymark is ragged and half-arsed with no photos which require me to to to the location to take the photos, collect all the needed information etc, why would I go through the trouble to categorized an uncategorized one...  I would submit a new one.   I would guess I answer 99% of all variables while not at the site  thus it is seldom would I need to go to the site to answer them. 

I still stand on my early comments.... If someone submits an uncategorized waymark and just don't know the 900+ categories and some one say hey that fits in the XYX category the assist should go to the categorizer and the submission should to the  newby who is learning.  It is a cheap way to get a waymark as it stands.   

The map will be rendered basically meaningless along with the grid. 

Please understand that if I appear apprehensive or unsupportive it is because I am either confused or skeptical. I'll start from my big concern, then wander randomly as I often do.

It has always been my understanding that if I create a listing, all of the content including my text and images are protected under the Waymarking Terms of Use and likely by intellectual property laws. With that in mind I have been open to allowing Category Officers the right to make minor edits to my works. Now it appears that anyone can come along and copy, change, modify or take ownership of my content. That does not bode well with me nor do I wish to see the works of my friends in the Waymarking community being regurgitated by others as if their own. In short, I wish to continue to be able to protect my content and not allow it to me augmented or recycled without my consent.

These uncategorized listings, why does the ownership change? I much prefer the ideas raised by my distinguished peers where the idea of a Waymarking Mentoring Program would seem like a more successful way to include everyone in the process. My son writes online stories and before they are published they are reviewed by what he calls a "Beta" and they correct spelling, grammar and such. But when posted, the stories still say that my son is the author. Being blunt, I don't want to take over ownership of anyone's listing but would be very happy to help them get published. At the very least, can we have something like www.waymarking.com/adopt so the listing can be transfered?

Now the positive,

I certainly appreciate that allowing edits may correct errors or changes, and having accurate data is good. I'm sure that things will work out. I'm just concerned about how this might impact things.

BQ

Following up, I spoke to my wife about this. And she said "What if the location already exists?"... normally we would decline it and it would go away (sorry to be blunt) but these would linger in the holding area indefinitely.

Like a new category, it seems that some discussion should be taking place in these forums. I completely understand that Groundspeak can do as they please... and often they are great ideas, but for five years now it has basically been Nate and Sean.. and often with input from the forums... I hope that the experience afforded by those of us on the ground level can continue to be at least influential.

BQ

yes, one poster, and peer edits--through this process or the current on (include it in you visit/note). i think this process is trying to spread the peer review idea.

the waymark adopt function worked in beta (does the url you listed not work?). I used it myself, i posted a few penny smashers in my name that i hadnt visited (i did not then visit them). i took the TB adoption idea to WMs, and it worked.

i liked this idea, and a long time ago i mentioned that you could trade icons--to populate your posts bingo grid with 'hard to get icons'.......say i go to a Czech Geodedic Point to visit, and the owner had been to a US Benchmark of mine--i would gladly give them ownership of my US point to be the owner of the CZ point.

but then shouldnt this activity show in my 'complete waymarking activity' data that is being compiled? what all is/isnt included in this? will this compilation resurface lost archived marks?

just tried, got the error box. will my 'history' also show each time i got that box? what about the several marks i had to write up twice today from a 'bad request'--which also happened on a pic upload (or two), but a refresh corrected that.....

yes, a mentoring program.....you find cool things, i tell you where to put them (and get a point?), so you now know about that category.....

but i am more interested in marks that i know where they go, but not enough info to complete the process (a religious statue tht i dont know who it is). what about this? not really uncategorized is it?

the blue quasar:

Now it appears that anyone can come along and copy, change, modify or take ownership of my content. That does not bode well with me nor do I wish to see the works of my friends in the Waymarking community being regurgitated by others as if their own. In short, I wish to continue to be able to protect my content and not allow it to me augmented or recycled without my consent. BQ

I agree 100%. I once got a visited to a waymark that was total plug for the band playing at the dance club waymark. I had to delete it. What if the same thing happened and the plug was put in the body of the waymarked and it passed? I would be ticked.

As for uncategorized I don't see a point. If people don't know where it should go, in the past people would ask in the forum. If you don't have all the requirements (missing a photo), then putting it in a queue won't produce a photo.

I do see where the uncategorized waymark would be useful if I could enter them and they were private to me and if I could clone from them.  Another use would be for times where I have taken photos and coordinates of a location that is not a category yet but feel it might be eventually so it is an uncategorized holding area for myself.

Okay, some of the details have been clarified - thanks. 

Still trying to get my head around the concept as a whole, though!  What crying need has captured so much time and energy?  As I recall, it was a perception, valid or not, that we were losing potential waymarks because people found the process of finding a category for a particular waymark too daunting.  I would contend that this is a minor problem the doesn't require such a drastic change in some very fundamental aspects of how we do waymarking.  In fact, I would suggest that we lose far many more potential waymarks from new waymarkers for other reasons - such as difficulty uploading photos, frequent error messages, and (the big one) unresponsive category managers!  And for experienced waymarkers, many waymarks go unposted due to the lack of an easy way to share photos among waymarks or to clone waymarks across categories.  It seems to me, from my perspective down below in the trenches, that these are the areas that should be receiving the attention. 

But, let's assume that perplexity over categorization is an issue.  The simple solution is to have an option for creating a generic waymark, with everything except variables and category, that would be in a group visible to potential participants.  Maybe have TWO variables for these - a short text box for Suggested Category, and a multi-line text box for Additional Information.  If someone can identify the correct category, or has further information for that particular waymark, then he/shee can fill in those variables with a category suggestion and/or additional information, then return it to the originator who can then complete and submit the waymark in a normal way.

This keeps things in a closed loop, doesn't invlove "adopting" or any complicated editing protocols or additional review tasks.  (Those are all things I think we should scrupulously avoid).  I don't think potential "categorizers" and collaborators would be interested in establishing credit, except maybe an acknowledgement in the waymark, but maybe something could be implemented to "count" these tasks as another stat.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm concerned about the "ownership" issue, and from the other responses, I think it is a key issue that just cannot be ignored.  There are other really thorny issues in making waymarks more open to editing by the rest of the world.  I think the whole integity of waymarks is threatened by such a process, and ultimately of the Waymarking game itself.

Mention has been made of having some sort of mentoring process, and I think it is an idea that is worth exploring, though I don't really have an idea of what shape that would take or how it could be implemented. I know that I and other reviewers often take on this role informally just by virtue of having to review waymarks and explain what is deficient.  Unfortunately that often sets up an advesarial relationship rather than a congenial, collaborative one.  If the latter could be achieved by some new functionalities, then that would certainly be worth the effort, and would result in the retention of more waymarks and wamarkers who would become longlasting contributors of quality waymarks.  That, I think, is a worthy goal.

I, too am skeptical, but I don't claim to understand the process fully after reading this thread.  Some random thoughts:

I find the idea of trading or voluntarily giving waymarks to other players intriguing and needed.  Eventually, people will leave or maybe GroundSpeak will receive a notice saying that 'so-and-so has just passed away.'  If there is no way to transfer ownership (as currently understood) to another player, the waymark has no active caretaker, other than the officers of that category.  Trading or giving away waymarks would help keep waymarks up to date, since there would be someone who is taking interest in it.  I'm not sure that I would be willing to trade my waymarks (it's more about my self progress than getting all the tiles).

Involuntary transfer of ownership because someone decided that I had not put enough into a waymark or changing of a waymark that I had submitted without my even knowledge of a pending change to me is a problem.  Some of my waymarks are short and probably could use a little more information.  I have gone back to waymarks and changed information as I have gained new information.  One thing I've been wrestling with is how to document changes at a site since it was originally submitted and approved.  Using the example of a church, let's say this church was a 125 year old building with a tall, white church steeple, housing an Episcopal congregation. I log it under "This Old Church."  A few years later,  the steeple is blown over in a massive wind storm and is permanently removed.  A few years later, the Episcopal congregation moves out and another group moves in.  How will this be documented?  I as 'owner' currently have the ability to control what content is on there, and I, personally would prefer to preserve the original text and add notes that are dated to the bottom.  But someone else might have the preference to keep the text 'current' and delete out the fact that the church had a tall, white steeple, or that it was Episcopalian at one time.  If I understand the previous submissions, under the new scheme, I as the submitter and original owner wouldn't even know it was changed, let alone be allowed to express an opinion as to how that waymark should be documented.  

A log of coordinates for 'roving' or moved waymarks is a good idea.  I just logged an artistically painted vehicle and in the owner's blog, he states that he is going cross country with it.  It would be great to have the coordinates change were it was last seen, but have the page keep a log of where it's been, too.

Thanks for the responses, opinionate.

Unfortunately, my concern over the addition of these two new features (uncategorized waymarks, waymark editing) has actually increased after hearing the issues raised by others. I guess we won't know whether those concerns are valid or not until the new features are put into practice.

But there is little question that these new features touch directly on several sensitive areas (waymark 'ownership' and reviewer workload), so it is easy to understand why this all feels rather threatening.

As a reviewer, I absolutely dread having to review proposed changes to the details of a previously created waymark. I can see that in some cases changes or additions to an existing waymark might be appropriate, but at the same time, to accept changes from a third party would feel to me like a violation of the implicit agreement between me and the original waymark submitter when I accepted the waymark into the category in the first place.

Accept the changes: irritate the original owner. Deny the changes: irritate the person trying to update the waymark with information that they believe to be better.

To be honest, I really don't know if I have it in me to accept proposed waymark updates from a third party. I feel for certain that if someone updates one of my own waymarks, I won't be happy about it.

opinionate:

I've never really understood how one can "own" a waymark anyway. I'm sure this is mainly our fault for not choosing terminology more carefully. You discover a location and write about it. That's more of an explorer or documentarian role than a form of ownership.

Like others have mentioned, I have always assumed that as the author of the published work, we do, in fact, 'own' the waymark.

opinionate:

Don't get me wrong - I respect the work that goes into creating a waymark and think a person should be properly appreciated for going to the trouble, but to quote Ernest Goes to Camp, "Who can own a tree?".

I know this comment was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I don't think this analogy fits at all. No one is claiming ownership of the location. The waymark isn't the location - the waymark is the gathered information and the published work. Now that others can (in theory anyway) completely rewrite my work, I guess Groundspeak views the ownership of my published works differently. I'm not happy about that, but it is good to know.

opinionate:

silverquill:

So, what is this??  A backdoor way finally to clone a waymark into multiple categories?

You cannot clone your own waymark so a sockpuppet is needed, which we discourage. For people clever enough to realize this workaround it will tide us over until a more purposeful feature is created.

Wow - that's too bad. One of the few direct and understandable benefits that could have come from the implementation of the new uncategorized waymark feature (i.e. the ability to clone a waymark into multiple categories) is not going to be supported at this point. I see that a workaround has been suggested, but discouraged with a wink. I guess it is up to us what we do with this information.

opinionate:

Don't freak out just yet. This feature is practically hidden from all but the power users. Also, only Premium Members can categorize waymarks so that cuts down on the drive by waymarking. If it's a disaster we'll make corrections.

I could be off base here, but knowing that as good as you guys are, resources are limited. So I worry about the potential time between 'disaster' and 'correction'. And unfortunately, during that time, the reviewers (which I know also includes some of the same people who are working on developing the new features) will have to shoulder the burden of dealing with the issues.

I know I sound negative and skeptical. To be honest, I'd rather not see these features put in place (at least not at this time, any maybe never). But if that train has already left the station, I'm sincerely willing to try to make this all work. If the wheels start to come off (the 'disaster' scenario), I suppose I always have the option of updating my categories with a statement to the effect of "uncategorized waymarks will NOT be accepted into this category, nor will proposed edits to waymarks already listed in this category", and then following through with the other officers to make sure all of these types of submittals are denied. And if I don't like edits made to my waymarks by others, I can always archive the altered waymarks.

cache_test_dummies:

I can always archive the altered waymarks

thats another can of worms....

Understood. My hope is that such drastic measures won't become necessary. I don't anticipate that they will. But that doesn't stop me from worrying that they might.

Now that I think more about my options if someone makes unacceptable (to me) changes to one of waymarks, I realize that my other option would be to just change the waymark back again. After all, I'll still have the ability to edit my own waymarks, right?

Of course, my changes could be changed back again by others, and so on. What would follow? Arbitration? Most persistent wins? Being locked out of my own waymark?

I really don't expect all this to happen. But in the absence of any real understanding of how these changes will all play out, my mind is wandering a bit.

how about this: you get locked out of your waymark, but you are still an officer with editing access to the mark?

shouldnt that box 'not exist' on such marks?