Here are a couple of ideas that I had:
1. have the author of a trip report be able to moderate his/her comments. So in other words be able to delete any comment

2. Image upload takes a long time!!!. If SummitPost could find a way to resize all images to certain smaller size, it may speed up the process.

That is all I have for now

aldocious wrote:2. Image upload takes a long time!!!. If SummitPost could find a way to resize all images to certain smaller size, it may speed up the process.

Facebook has this resizing feature, and it works too! (makes uploading much faster than original size uploads) I would have thought it would take longer because from what I understand it uploads it to the server and resizes it. Perhaps it resizes it on your computer?

This is all really good discussion. Hey Fletch, let the 90 day thing go man! Double the number and half your detractors will leave the field (right?).

It's late here and it's been a busy day, so I'll just go out on a limb. I think the membership has spoken. Enough strong contributors have said so clearly that even incremental moves towards a wiki-like approach for SOME (not theirs!) pages would cause them to pack up and head for the hills that I think the Elves' hands are tied. They fear that if you give an inch they'll take a mile, so it's important to be firm and loud. It's easy for them to deny there is a problem because from their point of view there is no problem: their needs are being met.

Fair enough. I've got things I've written and worked on too, things that I couldn't abide being trampled on.

But there are a lot of us who genuinely like Summitpost without putting ownership at the top of the value heap. Who saw it as a better, probably nicer community than ones we were in before. For myself, as an American living in a foreign country, I like the idea of one site where I can talk about things back home, and in my new home. But we aren't all into the idea of owning pages. Frankly, it's kind of old fashioned. Among my crowd, it won't win me any points. I bring value to a climbing outing by knowing the latest information, by steering clear of stupid obstacles like closed roads, or too much snow on the route for the season. I don't want to leech though. I do want to contribute. But it's these up-to-the-minute details where my knowledge lies. Like I said before, haunting "Additions and Corrections" is an unsatisfying way to spend your time. You just want to type the info in and know that it's there. Bam.

I guess I just want to get across to all these staunch defenders of the status quo that I'm coming from a place of integrity too, and I can't just adopt their model. I'd really like it if Summitpost could support this modus operandi.

But maybe it can't. I'm reminded of a recent article about California. We all know the state is kind of a mess. The government can't get anything done. One governer after another, and countless proposals for improvement get thrown out the window. You'd think the residents would be mad, right? Only the uninformed ones. As it turns out, the government functions quite well. The citizens don't want change, they prefer deadlock, and they punish any politician who tries too hard to break it up. I feel like that's an analogy for where we are.

Summitpost is Summitpost. I like it a lot. It's been really good to me. I got to have a dozen TRs on the front page, and sometimes those happened on really bad days where that gave me a real needed boost. I got to meet the Chief, Borut, Stef, Sebastian H. and a dozen other folks with it, all amazing people. But I haven't contributed lately, because I had my day with the TRs. As a guy who does technical routes, I have real ethical trouble putting them up because I was "led" up them by a topo in a guidebook that I bought. Then if I make a route page, I'm just remembering and re-writing in my own words the same information. A hiker doesn't have that problem. You can look at a Google Earth picture, see a faint line and then go walk it...no mental copyright gymnastics going through your head when you write up the route, because it's more uniquely "yours" that a rock climb.

Oh I'll do it...I'll write up rock climbs as routes occasionally. But I don't feel that easy about it. So I'd rather just contribute snippets. Maybe it's this emphasis on ownership at Summitpost that makes a technical guy uneasy. Maybe that's why only 10% of the routes are technical. I really don't know about Mountain Project and other sites, but perhaps there it's easier to dump your knowledge without feeling like a guidebook author is going without. I don't know. Some climbers attempt to solve this by only reporting something very out of the way, or forgotten, or only original climbs.

Basically I'm uncomfortable with "ownership." Curation or maintenence, I could handle. And I guess thats why I can't help but think in terms of wikis instead of owned pages.

Peace!
--Michael

I, for one, am not saying that change isn't needed or welcome. What I'm saying is, don't flip this site on its ear. Focus the changes where the real problem is; on outdated pages. If a page isn't outdated, then don't screw with it or its owner.

There are existing ways to provide simple/quick updates to good pages. Use the comments/addition forms. Make them more visible if it pleases the membership. But don't take a high quality page away from someone just because they haven't logged in as freqently as you think they should.

Buz Groshong wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:When I check SP mountain or route pages, I always check the climber logs and the "additions and corrections" section for updates.

I've always assumed that most people do similar checks.

Do you think this is a good assumption?

No need to do routine checks. If someone adds a comment, addition, or correction to your page you now get an e-mail notification.

Let me clarify. When I check pages other than my own for information about a mountain/route, I always check the updates and recent log entries for conditions.

This thread started out with some specific suggestions on how to improve collaboration and somehow that morphed into "let's take people's pages away from them and assign them to someone else." (I never knew you were such a pinko, lefty, commie, socialist Fletch.)

As I re-read the OP and subsequent member posts, it seems to me the best suggestion is to move the Additions/Corrections form to the main page and allow anyone to edit them. Perhaps we could add 2 sections to the main page:

1) Additions/Corrections - for permanent additions/corrections to the page
2) Conditions Update - for current local conditions (temporary trail closures, snow conditions, etc.) Updates here might expire/disappear after 90 days...

There is a risk that we'll get more spam in those sections but we'd just have to deal with it.

Wow, this has gotten pretty long pretty quickly, so I've skimmed over some of the discussion. My apologies if this idea has been suggested already, or proven truly horrible. But, I like the suggested corrections section at the page bottom wherein any SP member can enter updated/corrected information. On top of that, to make this information highly visible, there could be a standard banner that will appear near the top of that page, with a link to the correction information--it could just be a simple, bright red "BE AWARE THAT AN UPDATE HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO THIS PAGE, BUT NOT YET INCORPORATED. BE SURE TO INCLUDE IT IN YOUR PLANNING." That banner will stay there until the owner edits the page next, and either incorporates the information, or chooses to ignore it. In either case, the banner and the correction block will be removed from the page (or the page owner will be queried during the save if it should be removed). If the owner has abandoned/ignored the page for a certain period of time (six months?), tracked by the software to the moderators, then the page will automatically come up for adoption--or at least co-ownership (admin going to the new co-owner, so he gets those valuable REI points). The reason for suggesting that the information be removed after an edit (unless the page owner decides to keep it for some reason) is to allow the owner to delete comments that may be due to, sadly, the confrontational nature that sometimes arises here on SP.

--mark d.

Alpinist wrote:
There is a risk that we'll get more spam in those sections but we'd just have to deal with it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE[/youtube]

Fletch wrote:Why isn't the new membership contributing anything? Either they don't want to, can't figure it out, take no pride in it, or the existing pages are too protected by their precious owners that most folks say fuck it, let one of those 'old school' guys make a page?

I'm one of the 6 Fletch is referring to. Well said on that note, in the past I was discouraged by great peaks/routes that were taken that were not up to par with what they should be. They were a great start, but never finished. I would send out detailed PM's to some of those owners who I know where active members and would get no reply. Not even a simple answer like "I'm to busy to fix up the page". I know I got at least one page that I've adopted that needs improvement, but I will get the job done. That is the biggest reason I have not created any new beta pages. (I hold myself to the standard as well)

mvs wrote:I think the membership has spoken. Enough strong contributors have said so clearly that even incremental moves towards a wiki-like approach for SOME (not theirs!) pages would cause them to pack up and head for the hills that I think the Elves' hands are tied.

I think you exagerate the negative response, Michael. My read is that an opt-in (owner checks the box) wiki alternative would be acceptable to just about all members. The only thing people are vehement about is the idea of being forced to make their own past or future work wiki.

I also suspect that an open section at the end of certain page types, done along the lines Mark Doiron suggested, would probably be ok with just about everybody. The noncontroversial page types for that kind of section would probably be things like routes, trailheads, logistical centers, etc.

chugach mtn boy wrote:

mvs wrote:I think the membership has spoken. Enough strong contributors have said so clearly that even incremental moves towards a wiki-like approach for SOME (not theirs!) pages would cause them to pack up and head for the hills that I think the Elves' hands are tied.

I think you exagerate the negative response, Michael. My read is that an opt-in (owner checks the box) wiki alternative would be acceptable to just about all members. The only thing people are vehement about is the idea of being forced to make their own past or future work wiki.

I also suspect that an open section at the end of certain page types, done along the lines Mark Doiron suggested, would probably be ok with just about everybody. The noncontroversial page types for that kind of section would probably be things like routes, trailheads, logistical centers, etc.

You are right. I was tired! Thanks for the stoke!

I woudn't change anything in SP. Are you thinking on a SPv3 now

I've just noted several SP Mountain and non-technical SP route pages in need of updating, and according to the member's Profile Page the owner hasn't been active on SP since June 11, 2010.

What's the next step? Are they up for adoption ???

And, will there really be a Revolution? Sounds a bit scary ...

Larry here is how it works. The pages that are owned my non active members are in there hands until someone decides they want them and will do a good job. I took over quite a few myself which is how I went about it was to demonstrate to the elves that I would do a good job by doing a good job on my previous page(s). So trust worthy members are able to get pages from inactive members if the page needs some fixing up. With this knowledge, don't get too crazy with it.

As for the Revolution, for the longest time I considered SummitPost to be in many ways Capitalist website (my brother jokes and calls it "Monopoly" like the board game). People "buy up" all the properties (pages) and then later on people then start wanting the entire "set" to be grand and not just pieces. When I say Revolution, it's mostly referring to the over throw of the old days of SP where once someone had a page, that's the beta you get, and hope they do a good job. But these changes could be very revolutionary. I feel as though this is a day of age where we put aside who gets the points, who gets the fame, and focus on what is more important which is getting the information that people came here for. With many of the suggestions above we can for sure figure out a method which does not demise one's personal touch on a page while retaining the beta. I am very pleased that site admins stepped forward to attempt to being change to SP!

I have been reading this post for a while now, so maybe I should chime in. I have been member since about 2002. I joined to get good technical data on rock climbs, no BS info on routes, good beta to approach peaks and quality info on routes. I thought I could not get it anywhere else. Well, I was mostly wrong. Almost everytime I get info on a route on SP, I find that in the field, I see totally different issues, approaches are not correct, routes are not set up with care and a lot of info is, how do I say it, garbage? I think if we constructively look at the quality content of Summitpost, we cannot like what we see. I read a lot of pretty stuff, but very little hard info. Sure, Whitney, Eiger, Kilimangaro (insert your own big peak) are very extensive, but maybe just for those who would rather read fluff while having their coffee and much less for research to actually go climbing. I don't need pretty route descriptions, I really need hard and correct data. The challenge as I see it, is to increase the QUALITY of the SP content, not the QUANTITY of it. Secondly, I see less and less routes, TR, and notes about technical climbs. People who are connected with technical climbing are leaving the site. I have not seen technical route or technical trip report in many days. That is not good. If the SP powers want to have a hiking site, they already suceeded, but if they want to continue to have a true world climbing library, they need to make changes to restore the importance of technical climbing and mountaineering on SP. Separate the site for hiking and climbing, those two are after all completely different.