A comprehensive report by Adam Helman from a successful four man expedition on the Ruta Normal in January 2006. The report is uniquely organized by topic rather than being simply a daily rehash of what transpired. It seems to be excellent material for anyone planning an attempt on Aconcagua.
You're very correct that this report is by someone else. But it is a trip report, and as such shouldn't get hopelessly lost in the forums. You may recall that one of the options for trip reports in SPv1 was to simply provide a link to an external report. Not all trip reports will be posted to SP, and there are thousands of websites out there with great mountain information that we should be sharing with our fellow SP members, IMO.
If you ever look at om's photos, you'll see that a large portion of his 6,471 photo submissions are credited to Yves Masselot, who I'm guessing is his father. The photo credits are clearly shown, yet the good ones received high votes just like any other good photo. So the SP tradition is that the item gets voted on for its own merit, without regard for ownership. I think this is a very good tradition, not because I'm desparate for high votes, but because it properly reflects the voter's judgment of the submission itself, and it rewards people who take the initiative to submit good material regardless of ownership.
Here is another example. I submitted this photo for a friend who was way too busy with his own website to join SP. The photo has always been clearly captioned as belonging to my friend. Yet it has been very well received at SP, and has been the signature photo for the Mt. Hood page pretty much ever since it was submitted, as I recall. The irony here is that you voted that photo 9/10 (Dennis thanks you!) even though I didn't take the photo.
A low vote does two things. It discourages people from submitting good material that would otherwise never get included on this site. And it sends the wrong message to people like Adam, who will see your vote and think that you didn't approve of his report. This seems unfair to Adam, and doesn't feel very fair to me either.
I looked for a way to place a link in the TR section of SPv2, and didn't find one. Because this is a TR, it belongs with the TRs so it can be found by a search of TRs. If you vote it down simply because I didn't write it, you'll discourage such links, and you'll reduce the value of SP by that much.
I didn't climb Aconcagua. I didn't write the report. But when I provide a link to good information for the climbing community, I've done a good thing, have I not? It reminds me of the old adage: "No good deed shall go unpunished".
I just stumbled across this Bob, and I like it. Summitpost has too many "holes" in the mountain chains because people insist on high quality, formatted-for-summitpost submissions in which the author was a participant. I think a better way is that if you see something unique and interesting out on the greater web, then link to it in SP. Unfortunately, I think that battle is lost, and so SP will remain with plenty of holes. I guess it's the "wikipedia" debate - comprehensiveness or quality?
The only thing I would do different is that because Aconcagua has plenty of reports already on SP, I might instead put this on the Aconcagua Mountain Page (or petition for that). Often the mountain pages have a collection of good links from outside the system. But that is nitpicking: you have a TR, you added it to the list of TRs.
Thanks Michael! One reason I like this being with the TRs is that it can be searched for as a TR associated with Aconcagua, so if someone is looking for such, this will turn up in the results of that search. I liked SPv1's way of handling external TR links, but my guess is that Josh's intent with v2 was to give us even more flexibility to provide pages such as this one. Some people apparently refuse to understand, and that's OK too. -Bob