Seriously, this (admittedly minor) page has received only a single, rather negative vote. I wonder if it might even have been from a Creationist who took offense to (and/or misunderstood) my references to various biologists and their theories. Feedback on any shortcomings would be greatly appreciated.
Since you're asking, I'll share my opinion as a contributing member and as a moderator on this site why your pages in general receive few votes, none at all, and some low votes. For starters, they lack much information about the peaks and seem to have been written up in little more than a minute. To people who like to read and vote on pages, they look incomplete or just done with little regard to site standards of what a good page is.
Related to that, people who enjoy reading the new pages probably do not appreciate seeing several of these pages go up at once. In recent days and in the past, you've done that. There are a lot of members who like going to the What's New page and checking out new submissions, and they don't like seeing incomplete pages, mediocre pages, pages under construction, etc. Also, such pages push other people's submissions off the new lists, which some members see as unfair to those who have put more work into their submissions.
Back to the lack of information-- in a lot of cases, most of the important information for your peaks is obtained by clicking on links. Links for additional interesting information are one thing, but links for essential information are another. One of SP's biggest contributors and most respected members once said that a good page was one he could just print out and then take to the car and go, and a lot of people agree with that notion. They don't want to be following links to other pages and getting key information from so many different ones; they think it should all be right there on the main page. An excellent case in point is your recent Pickering page, which is basically nothing but links.
Something else missing in a lot of cases is basic information on distance and elevation gain. While sometimes the links provide that, that gets us back to the links issue.
People like a good Overview that tells us things about the peak to get our interest in the peak. "Why is it worth climbing this peak?" is something many want to know. "What makes it special and deserving of a page?" They like precise instructions for how to get out there. And although opinions differ as to exactly how much route details should be there, almost everyone thinks knowing distance, elevation gain, difficulty, and anything potentially troublesome is good.
The "UTM" pages fall especially short; no one would search for them that way, so they have that against them from the very start. They probably confuse a lot of people; I don't think any other person on the site makes pages that way for unnamed peaks. I saw you once explain your choice in that to a commenter, but I think most people would agree that a "Point ------" with the coordinates would be more interesting and useful, especially if you added a reasonable nickname (such as based on a prominent geographic feature nearby like a lake or a drainage) and were clear that it was just a suggested name for purposes of the page.
I don't know if any of this will help, but you asked, so I'm trying to be constructive. The way they are, your pages will continue to receive very little positive feedback, and this explanation probably covers just about all the reasons why. There can be a big difference between a "complete" page and a good one. While yours may meet minimum site standards, they aren't attracting a lot of positive attention. It's not the joke about the scientist or the fact that they are minor peaks; it's the presentation of the information and in some cases the shortage of it.
One other thing: A lot of your pages only appear to be attached to your 13ers list or another list like the California Highest 100. They would receive more exposure and be more useful to people if they were attached to the fitting Area/Range pages, where they would be noticed more, especially by people unfamiliar with the specific peaks of the area but interested in learning about them.
This page, in my opinion, is probably your best one: http://www.summitpost.org/sky-pilot-peak/551465.
However, it is not attached to an Area/Range page and therefore is less useful than it could be.
I really appreciate the time you put into your response to my request for constructive feedback on my UTM515178 (Northwest Lamarck) page. I will do my best to incorporate your suggestions into my future posts. You have raised several separate issues, some of which might benefit from further exploration. I will try to refrain from simply defending my actions, but I think it still makes the most sense to take them on separately. Would you suggest that I respond here or via one of the forums?
Feel free to explain your take on issues either here or in the forums. If you want a wider audience and more feedback, I'd suggest the forums, though. All the same, you shouldn't feel that you need to explain. Your pages meet minimum standards, and I'm just trying to explain why they don't get as much positive feedback as you might like.
I think I know what one of your points might be-- that leaving things up to people to discover more for themselves keeps the adventure alive-- and I agree to a certain extent, but it seems most users prefer more information. Me, I like going out and finding my own way with a map and no other beta, but when I write pages, I tend to keep in mind that most want more than that. In other words, I probably wouldn't use my pages for the most part, but I don't write them for people with my preferences when it comes to mountaineering.
Anyway, now that you've read my comments, I might delete the really long one. No need to have it there for good, but I'll leave it there if you want me to.
Please leave your comment in place until I've had a chance to respond to the points I feel deserve a little more conversation. I guess I'll do so via the forums, and I will let you know when I'm finished.
Following your excellent suggestion, I just went through and attached all of my mountain pages to all of the appropriate ranges and will do so for all pages I create in the future.
You probably saw them, but I just made three new forum posts to discuss issues raised by the concerns you expressed. I invite you to participate in the discussion of each.
I've seen them and responded to one. Regarding the others, I'll let the link you posted express my comments unless the thread goes somewhere beyond what I wrote.
And I'm glad you attached the pages; that will help users more and also get more attention for your work.
schmed - Sep 5, 2011 5:56 pm - Hasn't voted
Vote for me!Seriously, this (admittedly minor) page has received only a single, rather negative vote. I wonder if it might even have been from a Creationist who took offense to (and/or misunderstood) my references to various biologists and their theories. Feedback on any shortcomings would be greatly appreciated.
Bob Sihler - Sep 6, 2011 6:46 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Since you're asking, I'll share my opinion as a contributing member and as a moderator on this site why your pages in general receive few votes, none at all, and some low votes. For starters, they lack much information about the peaks and seem to have been written up in little more than a minute. To people who like to read and vote on pages, they look incomplete or just done with little regard to site standards of what a good page is.
Related to that, people who enjoy reading the new pages probably do not appreciate seeing several of these pages go up at once. In recent days and in the past, you've done that. There are a lot of members who like going to the What's New page and checking out new submissions, and they don't like seeing incomplete pages, mediocre pages, pages under construction, etc. Also, such pages push other people's submissions off the new lists, which some members see as unfair to those who have put more work into their submissions.
Back to the lack of information-- in a lot of cases, most of the important information for your peaks is obtained by clicking on links. Links for additional interesting information are one thing, but links for essential information are another. One of SP's biggest contributors and most respected members once said that a good page was one he could just print out and then take to the car and go, and a lot of people agree with that notion. They don't want to be following links to other pages and getting key information from so many different ones; they think it should all be right there on the main page. An excellent case in point is your recent Pickering page, which is basically nothing but links.
Something else missing in a lot of cases is basic information on distance and elevation gain. While sometimes the links provide that, that gets us back to the links issue.
People like a good Overview that tells us things about the peak to get our interest in the peak. "Why is it worth climbing this peak?" is something many want to know. "What makes it special and deserving of a page?" They like precise instructions for how to get out there. And although opinions differ as to exactly how much route details should be there, almost everyone thinks knowing distance, elevation gain, difficulty, and anything potentially troublesome is good.
The "UTM" pages fall especially short; no one would search for them that way, so they have that against them from the very start. They probably confuse a lot of people; I don't think any other person on the site makes pages that way for unnamed peaks. I saw you once explain your choice in that to a commenter, but I think most people would agree that a "Point ------" with the coordinates would be more interesting and useful, especially if you added a reasonable nickname (such as based on a prominent geographic feature nearby like a lake or a drainage) and were clear that it was just a suggested name for purposes of the page.
I don't know if any of this will help, but you asked, so I'm trying to be constructive. The way they are, your pages will continue to receive very little positive feedback, and this explanation probably covers just about all the reasons why. There can be a big difference between a "complete" page and a good one. While yours may meet minimum site standards, they aren't attracting a lot of positive attention. It's not the joke about the scientist or the fact that they are minor peaks; it's the presentation of the information and in some cases the shortage of it.
Bob Sihler - Sep 6, 2011 7:15 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!One other thing: A lot of your pages only appear to be attached to your 13ers list or another list like the California Highest 100. They would receive more exposure and be more useful to people if they were attached to the fitting Area/Range pages, where they would be noticed more, especially by people unfamiliar with the specific peaks of the area but interested in learning about them.
This page, in my opinion, is probably your best one: http://www.summitpost.org/sky-pilot-peak/551465.
However, it is not attached to an Area/Range page and therefore is less useful than it could be.
schmed - Sep 6, 2011 10:44 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Hi Bob,
I really appreciate the time you put into your response to my request for constructive feedback on my UTM515178 (Northwest Lamarck) page. I will do my best to incorporate your suggestions into my future posts. You have raised several separate issues, some of which might benefit from further exploration. I will try to refrain from simply defending my actions, but I think it still makes the most sense to take them on separately. Would you suggest that I respond here or via one of the forums?
Again, I really appreciate your feedback,
- Chris
Bob Sihler - Sep 6, 2011 4:55 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Chris,
Feel free to explain your take on issues either here or in the forums. If you want a wider audience and more feedback, I'd suggest the forums, though. All the same, you shouldn't feel that you need to explain. Your pages meet minimum standards, and I'm just trying to explain why they don't get as much positive feedback as you might like.
I think I know what one of your points might be-- that leaving things up to people to discover more for themselves keeps the adventure alive-- and I agree to a certain extent, but it seems most users prefer more information. Me, I like going out and finding my own way with a map and no other beta, but when I write pages, I tend to keep in mind that most want more than that. In other words, I probably wouldn't use my pages for the most part, but I don't write them for people with my preferences when it comes to mountaineering.
Anyway, now that you've read my comments, I might delete the really long one. No need to have it there for good, but I'll leave it there if you want me to.
Cheers,
Bob
schmed - Sep 6, 2011 5:14 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Hi Bob,
Please leave your comment in place until I've had a chance to respond to the points I feel deserve a little more conversation. I guess I'll do so via the forums, and I will let you know when I'm finished.
Thanks,
- Chris
schmed - Sep 17, 2011 3:19 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Hi Bob,
Following your excellent suggestion, I just went through and attached all of my mountain pages to all of the appropriate ranges and will do so for all pages I create in the future.
Thanks again,
- Chris
schmed - Sep 17, 2011 7:13 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Hi Bob,
You probably saw them, but I just made three new forum posts to discuss issues raised by the concerns you expressed. I invite you to participate in the discussion of each.
Best Regards,
- Chris
Bob Sihler - Sep 17, 2011 11:22 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Vote for me!Hi Chris,
I've seen them and responded to one. Regarding the others, I'll let the link you posted express my comments unless the thread goes somewhere beyond what I wrote.
And I'm glad you attached the pages; that will help users more and also get more attention for your work.
Cheers,
Bob