Fletch wrote:But I predict that by 2050, every page will be owned by Josh Lewis... [shudder]

Kidding!

Well as long as I don't disappoint folks. At least once I've given up a great page to a friend of mine (not because of how I did the page, but he really wanted it). So while I do enjoy owning pages, it's not impossible to get some from me. But in Fletches words "If you are looking to overhaul the page, then please put your money where your mouth is and take the page from me". In other words, prove that you'll do a better job than me.

Well hello, Sahale Mountain.

Slurp.

Have you even been to the North Cascades? What ever you do, don't harm my Eldorado Peak page... it's my favorite!

Climbed Baker and Rainier. That's about it. For climbing anyway... been on a few vacations. Actually on one trip we had plans to visit Sahale, but it didn't work out due to weather. Ended up out at the San Juan Islands instead.

Shasta is better anyway.

mrchad9 wrote:Shasta is better anyway.

IN YOUR DREAMS! Shasta is cool, but the North Cascades to this day are the best mountains I've ever been in. But unfortunately it gets a whole lot of bad weather. Wet, wett, and wettier. But that's the price I pay for this beauty.



Camping in the North Cascades is priceless!

One month of unresponsiveness from a person before giving up that person's page for adoption is too short. There are all sorts of reasons why a person might be inactive for a month.

I think six months ought to be the lower limit.

Klenke wrote:One month of unresponsiveness from a person before giving up that person's page for adoption is too short. There are all sorts of reasons why a person might be inactive for a month.

I think six months ought to be the lower limit.

I agree. One month is way too short amount of time. Six months to a year seems more reasonable.

A year?

I think it highly depends on how good the page is to start with. If it is pretty good and minor changes expected, I can see a longer timeframe. But if it is really an inadequate page, especially if most everything there will be replaced.... tough.

As Bob has said... you own the content, not the URL. If they are going to start over... you lose the URL. Technically no timeframe should be needed.

One thing I've noticed about the Denali page is that I have 199 votes. About 25 of those were submitted when the page actually looked like it does now (via the changes I made from the previous owners). The other 174 (or so) were votes in the past when the page looked like shit...

Any ideas on how to make that voting system more reflective of the current content (not just the historical content or longetivity of the page)?

Fletch wrote:One thing I've noticed about the Denali page is that I have 199 votes. About 25 of those were submitted when the page actually looked like it does now (via the changes I made from the previous owners). The other 174 (or so) were votes in the past when the page looked like shit...

Any ideas on how to make that voting system more reflective of the current content (not just the historical content or longetivity of the page)?

Yes we have ideas and can implement that, we just haven't made it a priority. Feel free to add it to the UserVoice list if you like. No reason not to do it if folks really want it.

It wouldn't have a cutoff to realize when a page had a major change... but options include changing the weight or value of votes prior to switching to the current voting algorithm in January, or adding addtional weight to recent votes versus old ones (this can be done in such a way that page score do not automatically decline with time like they did before- just that they are more affected by the newer votes).

But honestly... I'm not sure it changes things that much. Will people change behaviors or how they submit or maintain pages? My guess is no.

Many of us know the current system. If the owner is inactive, the page can easily be taken (usually). If the owner of the page is active but has a lousy page, you suddenly have a tough situation. So what it all comes down to is what is the standard of SP? Are people forced to do a good job? What comes first, a poster pride, or the integrity and quality of the content? I'm proposing a better case system for when you request a page. What do I mean? (good question left side of the brain) When requesting pages you could have one "prove" with evidence why the page is bad or lacking. Make the elves feel assured that if you were to take the page, you would do a much better job. But that still doesn't resolve the question of the active owners content (says right right side of the brain). True. So this is where the elves have to start considering:

1. Is the page in need of fixing or just needs more information?
If no, end of story. If yes, then send PM to that owner asking them to update the info (assuming the page requester already did this).

2. Page owner replies "page is fine, don't need any more added". This is where the question above "what is the standard?" comes in. If they meet the standard but the page is "just barely at the level" than the admin should propose things like "would you mind if so and so was an admin of the page?". Or "Someone is requesting that the page have more information (perhaps ask "could you please add more info or let someone else add it").

3. If they deny any help from the community and the admins and are not willing to fix the page, I believe this is where the admins could step in. Why? Because the information has been proven compromised. This is where course of action has to be taken. SummitPost is about information, not FigureitOutYourselfPost.org. If they throw is hissy fit, don't give into it. While we value people and want whats best for folks, we also value good information that leads us in the right direction. That should never be compromised because someone's ego prides them to their old work.

I know much of this idea already takes place, but I'm laying it out on the table for everyone to see and trying to move it in what I believe is a good direction.

Josh he was talking about the voting algorithm. Not page adoption process.

I originally was going to reply to that, but changed my mind. Then I typed so much that I forgot to remove the quote. Now it's removed.