DL, great work keeping this page active and up to date.

What do you think about removing the construction template? IMO I think it is solid enough that you don't need that template. If your objective is to give users a link to this forum, you can easily include a link in the opening paragraph.

DwarfLord wrote:

qwaletee wrote:Responding to error reports (UR) is safe as long as the editor is aware of UR etiquette and has someone to ask for help if it turns out the problem is not one they can figure out how to solve.

That's a great point, the "What should I edit, then?" section could use a lot more positive suggestions and general advice on where (and where not) to focus.

This is a great addition. Thank you DwarfLord!
For the "where should I edit, then?" bullet list, what about adding

• Alert an editor working an an open UR if you have information that can help solve the report.
• Adding/updating important information (landmark name, address, city name etc.) to EXISTING point or area places.

I'll try to think of more "safe" edits. I concur that we need as many positive points in here as possible, so junior editors don't get discouraged.

Yes, that guidance is ambiguous, and the changes recommended above sound much better. (What, for example, is a "senior editor"? R6, or R5?)

I like conveying the notion that such changes should not be made without consultation with the editor involved in creating/editing that particular Place. We don't need to be in a heated rush to make such changes, so consultation is good.

I think too little importance is placed upon the value of WME Toolbox & Validator to new editors. These are tools every new editors should have, especially Validator since it explains whats wrong and how to fix the issue. WME Toolbox is just as important bc it now alerts the user they have a PM waiting for them if they are unable to be reached via chat (which could be useful if they are causing damage to the map).

I think we should convey to editors that map editors are not required to use these plugins but that it is HIGHLY recommended to do so. Especially for editors who plan on or already do edit regularly.

In a dream world, waze would already incorporate such tools into the editor. However in the meantime, I don't see the problem with urging new editors who plan on being an active regular editor to install the plugins. If we come across an editor who is making incorrect edits, one will likely refer them to this page and recommend installing the 2 plugins anyways, at least thats what I do and they all installed the plugins with no objections. Its all about how we deliver the message, simply convey that new editors are not required to use these plugins but that it is HIGHLY recommended to do so and why the plugins are so helpful. If they are serious about editing, they likely wouldn't have any objections to installing the plugins.

I like it! This would have been great when dealing with a Rank 1 editor who undid almost a whole city worth of NFC edits.

Speaking of which, is it worth mentioning the road type / NFC guidelines as a functional mistake? This is not always intuitive for new editors.

Thanks!

)After a PM exchange which we want to share)

There are several types of personalities, who respond to several types of presentation. IMHO, you could achieve perfectly the same by using a different tone. I can't say someone new adding a walking trail did an incorrect edit, he or she probably wasn't aware of the agreements that were made to better not add it. It was probably just a very logical step to add a missing road and type it accordingly if you start using Waze.

So, we like to teach him/her about all the agreements of the community, so the Waze Map/Navigation works better. To me, it is giving the opportunity to learn more, to improve working with Waze, not to correct wrong edits.

It is just another way of looking at it I guess

DaniloAzevedoSaquarema wrote:

Are you here to post only smilies?

I love this page. Of all the wiki pages, I found this one to be the most relevant and helpful when I first started editing. As I progressed to more complex issues, I went on to many other wiki pages, but when just starting, this page was very relevant.

However, that being said, it is my opinion that the context of the opening sentence (if you were advised to read this...) really should be changed or softened a little. The page quickly goes on to be very reassuring, but not after leaving an initial bad taste in the readers mouth. I know when I was first 'advised' to read the page I was insulted and irritated. "Really? You think you're better or smarter than me? Because I jumped into editing before reading 200+ wiki pages and made a few small mistakes?" "I have an IQ higher than you can count, go @#$@#% yourself"... was probably close to my thoughts/reaction at the time.

That said, in actuality I of course responded politely and professionally to the kind editor that noticed my initial errors and pointed them out to me. I did also go on to read the page in detail. Upon doing so, I pretty much wish it was the first page I read. I think it is very well-written, well-paced, and provides good, clear, and relevant examples of the most common 'beginner' mistakes (we all made them).

In summary, I think it is a fantastic page. I found it very helpful when starting (I have always been the 'jump in and figure it out as you go' type) and as such have sent it to other new editors - albeit always with the caveat "I'm not saying I've seen you make any of these mistakes... & I've probably made all of these mistakes when starting." Or something along those lines so as not to give the impression that; "I'm sending you this page because you're a lousy editor and you made a bunch of mistakes."

Bottom line: It's probably my favorite page, but I really think the first sentence (and by extension the second and third) needs to be fixed, altered, or changed (only my opinion of course).

Maybe to something like: This page covers some of the most common mistakes and errors that we all have made.

DwarfLord wrote:Let me know if this comes across as more helpful and understanding.

Alternative Incorrect Edits lead-in wrote:
This article reviews the most common editing mistakes in Waze. For those new to the [[Waze Map Editor]] (WME) it describes these mistakes and how easy it is for anyone starting out to make them. For advancing editors and Area Managers, it describes how best to respond to the mistakes when they are discovered. Finally, it discusses productive ways for new editors to contribute with minimal risk.

Incorrect edits are a natural part of Waze

Waze created the WME with the desire to attract as many editors as possible. To this end, the WME allows anyone to change the map quickly and easily without reading, training, practice, or tests.

Beneath the WME's attractive and welcoming exterior, however, lies cutting-edge technology. The WME provides expert tools that behave differently depending on minute and often invisible details. Under some conditions the WME behaves counterintuitively and trips up experts and beginners alike.

This situation guarantees that no editor will escape the WME unscathed. We all make mistakes, and lots of them.

This article discusses three categories of typical confusion: misunderstood principles, functional mistakes, and misunderstood conventions. Before discussing those, however, it's critical to bring up one kind of incorrect "edit" that is worse than all the others put together.

That is a lot better in my opinion.

Like I said before, I like the page and the content - I think it is very relevant. My only thought was maybe just a little more nuance with the presentation, like you just did.

I know I personally don't take, "You are wrong," nearly as well as I can handle, "I think you might be wrong..." Subtle maybe; but just my thoughts.