I don't think that Kalet is one of them though...

I actually share the following page with Brian (he is the owner; I am the admin):

http://www.summitpost.org/park-range/182864

When it was first added, the information was a little thin and I asked Brian if I could help with it and added a bunch of info. I thought the end result was pretty good working together on it.

My own thoughts concerning the page in question:

If there are errors on the Avalanche Gulch page, that they should be pointed out and Brian should have a chance to fix them.

People should improve a page if they adopt it, and make it as accurate as possible. People also shouldn't be afraid to point out inaccuracies either.

As far as the Avalanche Gulch page goes, here is it in current form:

http://www.summitpost.org/avalanche-gulch/155406

To me, it doesn't look bad at all, but I've only climbed the opposite side of the mountain so don't know what inaccuracies there are (which as you point out, it's better to know before voting, but not always practical for every single page on SP).

If someone points them out and Brian fixes them, I see no big issue.

Personally, I think we should give Brian a chance to update the page(s). It appears (to me) that he is updating one right now. [All of which I said in the elf discussion on the matter].

I do not like inaccurate pages, but think that active members should be given a chance to fix them before being called out (and I mean no offence to anyone who does or did).

Here is one I did call out, but only because things weren't fixed after six years and most of the page was inaccurate (inaccuracies have since been corrected by the elves):

shingle-peak-inaccurate-page-t63318.html

I know there are some issues with some pages Brian adopted, but now that he's aware of them, he should be given a chance to fix them (maybe give him the benefit of the doubt and see what happens). That's all I can say.

Scott-

What is the basis for saying Brian ought to be given MORE time to fix up the page? He climbed it eight years ago, and has done nothing for several years to improve it. Did you read the whole page? There is nothing there that someone who has never even been on the route cannot pull off of a topo map. That isn't the quality the most popular route on the second most popular mountain in a state should have.

Frankly your standards are very low. And as I posted, if you sit on a page that you adopt from someone else for so long, the time to start working on it is when you adopt it, not when you finally realize that someone else is there behind you.

Your approach to page adoption is no better than what we have had since the site began (and is far more conservative than Montana Matt suggested by the way). It is a largely do-nothing, defer to who called dibbs approach, and that is not better for the overall site content.

You are constantly saying various processes on the site are not perfect, but have yet to offer specific solutions. Not once. And here again you are saying this page adoption process shouldn't change at all. All your red tape, sitting and waiting, and elves doing nothing is how it has been handled in the past and is exacly why Josh and so many others who have faced this issue in the past have given up and done nothing either.

Get some balls dude!

Just saying ... THIS is a very good EXAMPLE to follow when VOTING on somebody's page :

1/10. The Worst. Ever.
2/10. Horrible
3/10. Pretty Bad
4/10. Below Average
5/10. Average
6/10. Above Average
7/10. Pretty Good
8/10. Excellent
9/10. Wow! Amazing
10/10. The Best. Ever.

Now, it's time for me to "change" some of my votes on y'all pages ... I won't tell you which ones ...

Lord have mercy, ladies, save the drama for yo mama...

I know .... I must have started something here ...

Hey, if a member has been completely ABSENT from SP for over TWO YEARS, can I (request) the higher powers to adopt some of their pages?

He-he-he ....

Stashing pages is a problem sure, but in my opinion some of the pages held and updated by more active members are not great either. There are too many personal anecdotes, dramatizations, delusions of grandeur, inflated egos, and plain bad writing. Sometimes I think I'm on facebook.

Tell me about the approach, what to expect at the crux, the descent options, good bivy sites, etc... Can you do that without bringing yourself into it? I don't want to hear about how special this mountain is because of that trip you took with your buddy.

I think some people should direct more energy into their blogs.

[end of rant]

Brian C wrote:I completely agree that there are some pages that need to have some more work put into them, but once it reaches a certain point is personal taste and the trouble would be who determines where that line would be drawn. One person's definition of a good page may be dramatically more detailed than another and both could still be good pages.

Exactly. This is a deep concern of mine regarding this issue. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.

Last summer, within a week of my climbing a certain peak in Montana, another member put up a page for that same peak. Already, I had been planning in my mind the layout and text of the page I was going to make. And the page was, in my opinion, a disappointment both for the peak and compared to what I had in mind. I sent the member a PM which, looking back, I see was fairly rude, expressing my disappointment and my hopes that he would do a better job than he had with his other pages. The member, a bit insulted, deleted the page and told me I could do it. Then he had a change of mind and reposted it. Later, I took a gentler approach, giving him some tips and corrections based on my own climb of the peak. He was gracious and even told me that my Montana pages were part of the reason he had moved out there, which made me feel a bit bad about my initial approach.

Unfortunately, he has yet to incorporate the corrections and suggestions, one of which involves the actual elevation of the peak, for he uses the elevation marked on maps which actually is for a benchmark a little below the highpoint.

However, although it is a disappointing page relative to what I would have done, it is not a bad page. It tells a little about the peak, it has accurate driving directions, and it has good enough route information that one could use the page to climb the peak.

I could make a persuasive argument, based on the corrections I pointed out and the fact that he hasn't incorporated them, to take over the page, but I have to ask myself: is this more about my wish to have the page or my wish to improve the page, and is the page okay as it is?

There are a lot of other pages on SP that, if I am honest, I could and would do more with but are sufficient if not great or even very good. Some that come to mind quickly, and I'm not trying to pick on anyone, are the following: Absaroka Range, Gros Ventre Range, Wind River Range, Pinnacle Buttes, Hilgard Peak, a number of CO 14ers including Longs, Angels Landing, Telescope Peak, Medicine Bow Peak, quite a few scrambling peaks from Red Rock Canyon NCA, and several from NC and VA. Maybe I will get around to asking the page owners if they want the pages anymore, but I don't see any forced changes as justified.

A real concern I have, to echo Brian C, is that in some cases, people are not differentiating want from need and simply want pages because they want to make them look prettier.

So, regarding two specific pages brought up in this thread:

Avalanche Gulch-- Chad has climbed Shasta several times and is one of the most knowledgeable people on this site when it comes to that peak. I do not question for an instant the points he makes about the page. But now that this matter has been brought into the open, I think it's fair that Brian Kalet be given the chance, with a time constraint, to update the page accordingly if he wishes to keep the page. In the spirit of many of the recent changes here, I think people should be given that opportunity. It concerns me, as Chad points out, that the page is missing information on the crux of the route; a route page does not have to hold my hand, but it definitely should prepare the climber at least somewhat for the crux. And I also disagree with the fact that climbing the route one time 8 years ago disqualifies him from having the page; many of us have pages for peaks and routes we have climbed only once. What would disqualify him is if he fails to incorporate crucial information and make noted corrections.

Mount Baker-- With all due respect, Josh, I do not see the case for taking over this page. The owner was last active and last updated it in September 2012, late September, so not even 6 months ago. It is not a bad page. Could it be spiffier? Yes. Is it bad? No. Are there several route pages attached that contain the meat for climbing the peak? Yes. I'm sorry, but this one strikes me as a case of want over need. Leave the decision up to the owner, or, if he stays inactive for several more months, then let's consider the page abandoned and transfer it to you.

EDIT-- see my post below before responding to the Baker comments.

On balance, I think Chad has the stronger case for a forced adoption, but I think a set but reasonable period of time must be given.

And I'm sorry if it looks as though I'm calling you guys out, but you two did, after all, open this up and bring others into it in the first place, so feel free to return the favor.

(Note-- I recently adopted the Zion page and have made some changes but am not done, so no clamoring for that page yet!)

Montana Matt wrote:Perhaps a reasonable process to propose for adopting pages is the following:
1) A member contacts the elves stating clearly what the page is lacking or how it could be improved. There should be some concrete list of things that they believe need to be added to bring the page up to date or to simply improve it.
2) The elves review the list and, if they find sufficient reason to, the member owning the page is contacted and provided the list of needed improvements. The owner is given 30 to 60 days (depending on the magnitude of the changes and other outstanding factors) to implement the changes.
3) When the changes have been made the member contacts the elves (or after the 30 to 60 day window passes). The elves then review the page to ensure that the things that were listed have been addressed thoroughly.
4) One of the following will happen after the elves review:
a)If the changes are sufficient, the original owner retains ownership.
b)If the changes aren't sufficient, but obvious effort has been made, the member gets additional time to redo whatever the page may still be lacking.
c) If after the 30 to 60 day window, the page hasn't been touched, it is immediately transferred to the member who initiated contact about the page.

I think the above is the best idea I have heard so far regarding this. It seems fair to all parties. However, I would propose applying this policy to all pages, adopted or not, that someone deems insufficient. That would make more work for the elves, but I do not think it is too much to ask, especially since there is a group of us that would be keenly interested in handling this policy-- Chad, Josh, Matt L., and I at the very least. Probably Scott, too.

(But I still think the first step should be the member attempting to contact the owner directly.)

Oops-- apologies to Josh.

I misread an earlier post and thought he meant the Baker page itself. I see it was a route page. And, looking at that page, I do agree that it needs change.

So back to it-- tell the owner (again) what needs to happen, give a time window, and give him the chance.

Sorry, Josh, for the mistake. I didn't edit the other post in case someone was busy quoting it.

Bob- you are advocating sticking with the current, high red-tape, laborious and time consuming process for members to put volunteer effort into updating pages, some of which are clearly lacking. You have not proposed any improvements!

It is not fair to a qualified member to expect them to wait 1-2 months in a case where the current owner hasn't made any substantive additions to a page that they didn't create. It isn't a process that I would follow. For me Matt's outline applies to work an active owner created or developed substantively beyond what it was when it was received. If it isn't something you developed, then everyone has equal rights to it. And this is especially true for the most heavily trafficked pages. If the owner is already inactive, then those pages are abandoned too. Making this difficult is why we have so few adoptions and so many pages out of date.

And I'm not talking about taking good pages from active members who spent time generating information.

It's about what is best for the site and members, not what they should be able to live with.

mrchad9 wrote:Bob- you are advocating sticking with the current, high red-tape, laborious and time consuming process for members to put volunteer effort into updating pages, some of which are clearly lacking. You have not proposed any improvements!

It is not fair to a qualified member to expect them to wait 1-2 months in a case where the current owner hasn't made any substantive additions to a page that they didn't create. It isn't a process that I would follow. For me Matt's outline applies to work an active owner created or developed substantively beyond what it was when it was received. If it isn't something you developed, then everyone has equal rights to it. And this is especially true for the most heavily trafficked pages. If the owner is already inactive, then those pages are abandoned too. Making this difficult is why we have so few adoptions and so many pages out of date.

And I'm not talking about taking good pages from active members who spent time generating information.

It's about what is best for the site and members, not what they should be able to live with.

I'm just saying we should start from scratch given all the recent changes and new staff additions. From today, follow Montana Matt's proposal. That's what I suggest. That may not be aggressive enough for you, but I happen to see some of what's being proposed as excessively heavy-handed. SP just went through some significant changes. Settle on a policy, publicize it, and then go.

So few adoptions? Josh, Scott, and many others would attest to the fact that I have transferred numerous pages over the past few years. Sometimes I have transferred them on the same day, without question. Sometimes there has been a waiting period and an attempt at contact.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not comfortable with some of what's being proposed here. It's like the barbarians bashing down the city gates and ready to storm the place. Not my style. If that's the direction SP is going, fair enough, but if such is the case, then it's time for me to step aside rather than stand in the way.

I like Matt's proposal.

Yours was a change to his proposal.

Just please explain to me, using my Merced Peak page as an example, why I should have any more rights to it than any other random member qualified to work on it if I haven't made any updates? And no one should have to wait two months just because I decided to hold it and then get up off my ass and do something AFTER someone more ambitious comes along. If they had the initiative to ask and promise to do something then let them have at it!

It isn't my page... it just happens to be under my profile.

Applying that list to ALL pages, as you put in bold, would make the adoption process worse, not better. It is a good solution for content submitted by active members as Matt originally proposed.

mrchad9 wrote:I like Matt's proposal.

Yours was a change to his proposal.

How? Do you mean my preference that the interested party contacts the page owner first? If so, I stand by that because I think it's better for members to work with each other before calling in the referees.

Otherwise, I don't see how I was changing anything. The rest of what I wrote was basically a caution against over-zealousness.

P.S. If it is indeed time for me to step aside from the brave new world of SP, I promise not to be the big drama queen some other recent departees have been, and I won't take all my toys with me. Sorry, popcorn people.

No one is asking you to step aside Bob. Don't be dramatic.

See Matt's post above.