romulusnr
10/26/05 05:56 PM
|
Discussion:
When a duplicate is submitted or discovered, should it always be the original that is retained, or should there be some criteria to determine which to keep?
I submitted what turned out to be a dupe for Bellevue Hospital in New York. The original had the name of the location misspelled, so it didn't come up when I searched for the name. It is scant on info, with no More Info URL and no description.
Furthermore, the thumbnail includes the GMaps red marker, and is roughly centered on its spot -- the front door of a larger complex, meaning barely one-third of the complex is actually visible in the thumbnail. Whereas mine was clipped to the bounds of the actual complex, as determined by eyeballing the Map and Hybrid views.
I guess I just think its discouraging that a good dupe will be tossed out in favor of a lower-quality original submission. At very least, it should be a matter of course to add any additional content from the dupe to the original. I end up having to pester admins in the comments about the good things in my submission that are now lost, and hope they get picked up. (At least once I've been asked to resubmit my dupe to make the better data available again.) Admittedly, I might have done that in the first place, but that would have required that my due-diligence search for an existing sub for the location under its correct spelling (which, incidentally, is plain as day in Map or Hybrid views of the spot) had been successful.
|
nic
10/26/05 06:24 PM
|
Usually with a dupe, we keep the one that was posted first. However, in the case of the newer one having "better" data or thumbnails, it is up to the moderators to make the decision on which one to keep. We've gone both ways.
I'm sorry that your submission was removed. I'll try to add some way for the moderators to "see" if the newer one has any comments about it that might indicate why this should be used instead.
|
kjfitz
10/26/05 07:56 PM
|
By default I always delete the new one. If there is a lot of data and I notice it I'll often transfer the data from the new one over to the old one but I'm not consistent about that. I often get rushed and reject them without looking at their respective info.
We can look at keeping ones that have more info but that could open the door to a whole wave of dupes with more info (that's really what the comments are for... adding more info) and the resulting conflicts of "why did you replace mine with theirs, mine was better to begin with."
It's a bummer to spend time researching a site, concientiously look for dupes, and then have it rejected. If it is any consolation, my reject queue contains 57 rejects all of which I'm pretty sure had better "additional information" and "more info" links.
One thing that might help is to come back about 20 minutes after you post (that's enough time for the auto nearby calculations to happen) and see if there are "nearby maps" that are actually dupes. If so drop a comment in your post if you think your data should be copied over to the dupe. It isn't the best workaround but if you catch your own dupe it should work.
As for the red pointers, I'm slowly replacing the thumbnails on those as I encounter them (you'll see I did Bellevue this morning after you pointed out the data to add to it). There are still a lot but a couple of cities that had a bunch (like L.A. have almost been cleaned up.)
kjfitz
Virtual Globetrotting Moderator
|
