idpeakgirl wrote:While I agree making these changes are a priority, I would advocate that a higher priority should be speeding up the website. Maybe the elves are working on that already but... My friends and I experience painfully slow photo upload and page edit upload times, slow changes from one page to another, slow search engine, etc. Improving the server response times, if that is what is causing the slowness, gets my vote for the single highest priority.

Thanks for asking your users' views, and great website in every other sense!
idpeakgirl

I agree with idpeakgirl. A bigger issue for me is how terribly slow SP has gotten. It has literally prevented me from contributing anything in the past few months!

I say NO to an open wiki style of contribution. I put a lot of time and effort into each of my pages and I don't want anyone to be able to say anything on them. If someone has a suggestion for something I got wrong or overlooked I'm happy to make corrections. I admit that some of my pages are better than others but I do try to get around to each one on a regular basis and update them.

I do agree that there are a lot of pages that need some help so perhaps there are other ways of fixing this. For example, if a page has a low score and if the author does not respond after a certain number of attempts to contact them then maybe the page should be put up for grabs and the owner should get a PM stating what has occurred and for what reasons in case they do check back.

This is a good website. I like the idea of letting owners revert to prior versions. Is it possible to pull up photos, etc., from prior memberships? Thank you.

When the global PM hits the two-week mark indicated in it, , which would be this upcoming Monday, I'll send to Matt the suggestions listed a few pages back. In the meantime, I'll keep reading this thread in case there's a change in consensus or a great new idea.

What happens then is, of course, up to Matt and how much time he has and how complicated the changes are to implement.

This is just in case anyone is wondering if I've contacted Matt yet.

Thanks again for a [mostly] good discussion.

Please dont give people authority to change articles and albums.

Maybe the additions or corrections could be added in a big , long , thread like this one, to each mountain page. That way readers could gage them for what they might be, in case they are just a difference of opinion.

CBakwin wrote:Maybe the additions or corrections could be added in a big , long , thread like this one, to each mountain page. That way readers could gage them for what they might be, in case they are just a difference of opinion.

We have to write 22 pages of additions and corrections to each mountain page? Oh boy, we've got our work cut out then!

With so many prominent members leaving the Site, it will be (especially) difficult to keep up with all those Corrections/Additions.



http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=60303

Josh Lewis wrote:If you read the other 20 pages, you would know that that is not going to happen.

Josh, you should finish High School young man before you tell me what I need to do. Mind your business and stay out of mine. Are we clear?

For crying out LOUD ...

SOMETIMES, I wish I was back in High School ...

The only real issue I have with mountain 'ownership' is that a user is allowed to delete it after dependencies have been established; this action causes summit log entries to vanish and creates broken links on list pages. There should be a policy added that once a peak is either on a list, has a route, or a summit log has been signed (any dependency really), then the owner should not be able to delete the mountain entirely; perhaps deleting his content would be acceptable, but not to the extent that the record for the peak has been deleted. 'delete my page' (or whatever the feature is) could wipe the page and set the peak to an 'up for grabs' status. Perhaps there can be a link users can click on that will show orphaned peaks? Also, if it is possible to adopt a peak, a snapshot should be made at the moment of adoption so that the peak can be restored to something if the new owner decides to be malicious and delete the peak that he/she adopted.

sierramtngoat wrote:The only real issue I have with mountain 'ownership' is that a user is allowed to delete it after dependencies have been established; this action causes summit log entries to vanish and creates broken links on list pages. There should be a policy added that once a peak is either on a list, has a route, or a summit log has been signed (any dependency really), then the owner should not be able to delete the mountain entirely; perhaps deleting his content would be acceptable, but not to the extent that the record for the peak has been deleted. 'delete my page' (or whatever the feature is) could wipe the page and set the peak to an 'up for grabs' status. Perhaps there can be a link users can click on that will show orphaned peaks? Also, if it is possible to adopt a peak, a snapshot should be made at the moment of adoption so that the peak can be restored to something if the new owner decides to be malicious and delete the peak that he/she adopted.

+99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

I've found the direction of this thread depressing for the last 6 pages or so, at least I was out climbing. But I have two comments:

What I was getting at with my "asinine" (thanks mrchad9) comment about it being impossible to change voting behavior was that for years we've complained about the way people vote. None of these complaints change things one bit. We've essentially got a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system, despite numerous essays from individual members describing their nuanced voting patterns. I think the behavior is somehow emergent in the system, possibly because it's hard to tell the relationship between a vote and the page score. Whatever. I hoped this thread wouldn't become another place to chew that old bone.

I agree with sierramtngoats comment and add a +1 to mrchad9's +9 (thanks again mrchad9, and this time I don't mean it sarcastically). Nodes with children should remain at least as stubs, with a comment begging for adoption, etc. I hope this idea can make it into a submission to Matt, because it does strengthen the case for would-be contributors that their objects will remain in the context they placed them and not unattached or otherwise orphaned.