Speaking of gpx files, I manually draw mine up using careful observations using google earth. It takes between 10 minutes to an hour depending on how complicated and long the route is. But agreed, gpx files should give at least a tiny bit of a point.

ZeeJay wrote:With regards to separating hiking and climbing routes I don't mind if this happens, but I don't see the point since they are already categorized by "Route Type" and "Rock Difficulty", but then again, I'm not a climber.

I think there should be "Best Route" along with the other bests in the bottom left-hand corner of the front page. Why don't we replace "Best Area/Range", which is often empty, with "Best Route"? (And add Range/Area to Best Mtn/Rock.)

http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.p ... ct_4=score

Good point, no ranges within the week (at least when I checked at 1:42 p.m.). This would be easy to change, all they do is use the advanced search and make links out of them.

I've fallen behind on reading this thread and I don't think I'm going to get caught up on reading it at this point... so I'll mostly be repeating what a lot of others have said and perhaps have some comments that don't fit with the way the conversation has gone. Regardless, my thoughts...

Tweaking rather than wholesale changes.

A thumbs up or thumbs down system would be superior to the present voting system. If the voting algorithm could be changed that a 8, 9, or 10 were positive votes, a 6 or 7 would be neutral votes, and 5 or lower would be a negative vote - then I think that would be ideal. But a thumbs up/thumbs down voting system would be superior to a system where a 9/10 is a negative vote. Someone voting a 9/10 being interpretted as a slag on someone's contribution makes no sense.

Page design should stay relatively the same. I'd be for more visible feedback from other members that have useful information or corrections to give on a page.

Pages that have been abandoned and where the owner has been unresponsive for a given amount of time should be open to editting or adoption by others.

Other than that, I'm pretty happy with the site and will continue to be going forward!

ZeeJay wrote:Step 1: Send a PM to author
Step 2: Send a PM to the elves.

However, I do think there is a problem with people not being aware of the above method. Perhaps it should be stated on the front page, prominently displayed in flashing red letters.

Actually, a simple "Request edit permission" button on each page/section would be a very good step in the right direction, if we can't agree on some sort of wiki-like system. Just to make it more obvious that the option exists. I mean, if you're new to the site, it's easy to get the impression that its like an art gallery, and you don't exactly go to the Louvre and ask "Hey, could I paint a mustache on Mona Lisa?".

I like the above idea, though with a reference back to the existing Additions/Corrections and Comments sections for pages, while one is supposedly due to get an email if someone writes on one's page, does this actually happen? I just did a test but received no message, though I have for PMs. The reminder system needs to work if people aren't going to actively check their pages for supplied info.

hiltrud.liu wrote:The game with the points may depend on the popularity of a man, if a person has many friends.

Sometimes a lonely queer fish is very busy on SP, but this member can get hardly points for his famous images.

Perhaps this is the solution: You look at points on SP as a welcome and a little recognition of your working, then one point is enough, and sometimes a kindly comment.

Lonely queer fish ? Hmmm ...

I agree that MORE folks should include a comment RATHER than a vote. Comments mean more than VOTES. Most comments could be more constructive
than picking up another point and making your head grow BIGGER.

mvs wrote: I went off into geekland thinking about automatic systems.

Time for a Larry's Friday Night COMIC RELIEF BREAK ..

ZeeJay wrote:Step 2: Send a PM to the elves.

There are lots of people who are unhappy with unresponsive users, but I've never heard of anyone following through with step 2 and not being satisfied.

I have been following this thread for the past week and think there have been a lot of great ideas offered. But I can say that I have had great success with getting updates to pages using the methods ZeeJay mentions...first through Aaron Johnson and now with Bob Sihler. I think Bob has done an outstanding job trying to improve the quality of the sites' content!!!

I don't have many Routes posted so I don't carry much weight but I am against a full Wiki mainly because of the history of site - too many page owners have put too much effort into putting up those pages. But there is a need for improving quality of content. More effort by us members to escalate the issue of bad data would solve most of these problems. Sometimes this takes some persintence, but eventually it does work...whether through contacting the page owners, or contacting the elves that care about the quality of the sites's data. I have always been able to get updates made to pages with my persistence to the page owner or to an elf. Unfortunately this does take some time, but that's the way it is.

As for what appears to be the most popular change, if a section for Additons/Corrections is added to the main page I hope it has an expand button that users could hit to see all the comments. For some pages I could see the additions section getting quite large and becoming an "eye sore" after a while. It would be nice if we could just click on this section to read it.

I'm also against full wiki style editing. I'd like to see additions displayed in their own area on the main page though. That makes a lot of sense.

yatsek wrote:I think there should be "Best Route" along with the other bests in the bottom left-hand corner of the front page. Why don't we replace "Best Area/Range", which is often empty, with "Best Route"? (And add Range/Area to Best Mtn/Rock.)

Josh Lewis wrote:http://www.summitpost.org/object_list.php?object_type=4&within_last_4=7&sort_select_4=score

Good point, no ranges within the week (at least when I checked at 1:42 p.m.). This would be easy to change, all they do is use the advanced search and make links out of them.

Looks like all the other SP'ers prefer this void corner, say wilderness areas , to routes, even the best routes.

"Icarreau wrote:
Lonely queer fish ? Hmmm ..."

I mean in German EIGENBRÖTLER, perhaps "lone wolf" is the correct translation.

hiltrud.liu wrote:"Icarreau wrote:
Lonely queer fish ? Hmmm ..."

I mean in German EIGENBRÖTLER, perhaps "lone wolf" is the correct translation.

My apologies. Language has been a huge barrier for me on Summitpost. If it wasn't for "Google Translate," then I don't know where the hell I'd be.

As far as the thumbs up/thumbs down thing, I am skeptical that it would make things better. I'm guessing that just about everyone voting will just vote thumbs up on everything. Any thumbs down vote is going to make people mad, even if made constructively. Besides, if a page is just OK, how would you vote it? A thumbs up would mean that the page is fine and the owner of the page might take that as meaning that it doesn't need any work. A thumbs down is going to be seen as negative. It's a sure bet that people are just going to vote thumbs up on everything.

Scott wrote:As far as the thumbs up/thumbs down thing, I am skeptical that it would make things better. I'm guessing that just about everyone voting will just vote thumbs up on everything. Any thumbs down vote is going to make people mad, even if made constructively. Besides, if a page is just OK, how would you vote it? A thumbs up would mean that the page is fine and the owner of the page might take that as meaning that it doesn't need any work. A thumbs down is going to be seen as negative. It's a sure bet that people are just going to vote thumbs up on everything.

I agree with this. The real solution to the voting issue is adjusting the method so that voting a 9/10 does not lower the score. It has been made too complicated than it needs to be. Shouldn't the score simply be an average of the votes? I am not a mathematician, but that seems simple and fair. If this were the case, then you would get lower over all scores on pages but they would reflect people thoughts on a page more accurately. A page with a score of 80% would be a pretty good score. Right now, that would indicate a sub-par page.

This method would decrease the relevance of power points, but I think that other weighting members opinions, measuring volume of contributions and perhaps page creation and editing privileges, the points don't matter much anyway. I mean, they increase vote weight, but that is marginal compared to the broken voting system.

The real challenge would be how to retroactively grade the pages under the current voting rubric.

Does this seem that simple or am I missing something?