Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Front Page

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Re: Front Page

Postby chugach mtn boy » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:41 pm

borutbk wrote:I don't understand what you are saying or trying to imply. Excusa. Once more please.

Borut, the page of Gangolf's we were discussing was a regional page. You said he violated the rule that one should only post mountain/rock or route pages about things one has climbed. But that is nonsense, because it was a regional page. All this was patiently explained by MVS at the top of page 3 of the thread.

I am sorry for having been sarcastic in my response, but I thought your accusation was reckess and ill-informed. I am someone who has benefited enormously from Gangolf's pages in my travels, and I would like him to continue what he is doing.
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 109 posts

Re: Front Page

Postby chugach mtn boy » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:31 pm

borutbk wrote:You are (sarcastically) implying that I did not read the thread. Hold your horses!

As for nonsense: what you call a regional page contains rock/mountain pages, and featuring it also features the content. Ergo the discussion.

Oh I see now. You don't have a problem with the particular Suedpfalz page that is presently featured on the front page of Summitpost, but you would like Gangolf to delete or detach some of the pages that are linked to it in the left margin. Well, that is a topic for another day, perhaps.
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 109 posts

Re: Front Page

Postby mvs » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:39 pm

I'll comment on this latest thing that you guys are discussing (Chugach and Borut). Okay, I was just looking at the featured page, which is the Südpfalz area page. I guess opinions will vary, I already stated that I think it's a great page that can also use enhancement by some technical climbers when they show up. This is in accordance with my own feelings about Summitpost. I think that someone should post "what they have," because it serves as a kind of coral reef which will get routes and mountains attached to it. Therefore, the fact that a hiker makes a page about a region more famous for climbing doesn't bother me. In my opinion it's better than nothing, as long as it doesn't obscure or denigrate other uses.

Now, looking more closely I do see that Gangolf has a bunch of mountain pages under that area page. I happened to click on one randomly (Hohle Felsen). It looks like Gangolf scrambled up the easiest way to the summit. It's a very detailed page, showing clearly that the author has hiked around the area a lot. It talks about a rockfall in 2003 that made some routes unstable. But since the author doesn't climb or buy climbing guidebooks, he can't tell us the route names to avoid, only the area to avoid on the rock. There are links to rock climber web sites to tell us more information (mostly German, though).

I'm just not able to get upset about this page. As for the technical requirement that the author reach the summit, I clicked on other mountain pages in the sector and see that many of these summits have a hiking route to the top. Gangolf didn't always sign a summit register, but he offers very detailed hiking directions to the top and copious photos from up there.

I dunno, I guess if I look at every single mountain (there are a LOT) I might find some where he didn't stand on the summit. This would be a great waste of a valuable evening's time. But Borut it seems that you found some, and based on what you say is a general, long accepted site rule, then I guess you've got a valid bone to pick.

The thing is, for me, I've never been a fan of that rule. I've got a friend who spent weeks working on an amazing page for a Himalayan peak that he is working on an expedition to in the next few years. He made the page to consolidate information, psych himself up, make the dream more real. I did this once years ago for the same reason, making a page on North Peak of Index where I scanned in all the AAJ articles and all kinds of stuff I found to give myself energy for the climb (thank god it was on my own private site in a hidden area). Anyway, he fell afoul of this rule and had to either remove his page or accept being a pariah. I think he's gone the pariah route. I say it's a big waste of energy to do that to people.

I didn't mean to become an "insider" (the way Dow talks at me), yet here I am defending the "big gorilla" of the site. :D I've been a pariah here at least two times and I'm sure it'll happen again. I've always held that in general content is good. If somebody makes a page on a Columbia Gorge peak and focuses too much on the damn flowers (because that's their thing) and not enough on the southwest access route, I really don't care. Thumbs up, I say. Let somebody else come and add a route page.

Let me finish by saying I know there is a lot I don't understand. Borut, you made so many incredible pages. I only have a paltry few. It may be that you've encountered incredible anguish and difficulty from the problem of "page owned by someone who didn't climb it," and therefore have strong justification to make this an issue. Go on ahead then. I just felt I needed to respond to basically innuendo from Dow and now from you that seems to put many pages of valuable content into a bad light. The innuendo sounded serious. But then I looked at the pages, and responded with details of what I found. I don't mean to be difficult.
User Avatar
mvs

 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 7:44 pm
Thanked: 282 times in 108 posts

The following user would like to thank mvs for this post
chugach mtn boy, kamil

Re: Front Page

Postby mvs » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:33 pm

borutbk wrote:
mvs wrote:I dunno, I guess if I look at every single mountain (there are a LOT) I might find some where he didn't stand on the summit.

Gangolf Haub, in Comments to the Suedpfalz climbing region:
"Quite often you can clamber up the slopes and with a hand or two negotiate your way to the platforms on the summit."

... some ... quite often

I wonder how often out of 74. Either you did a climb or not. It's simple.


Oh so now it's my job to prove to you that Gangolf climbed every peak of your list of 74? Jesus! This is beyond petty. The poor guy is probably on vacation somewhere and you are getting your knives out. Give it a rest, Borut!
User Avatar
mvs

 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 7:44 pm
Thanked: 282 times in 108 posts

The following user would like to thank mvs for this post
Josh Lewis, Sarah Simon

Re: Front Page

Postby SoCalHiker » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:22 pm

To chip in here...

I think one should create an area page, if one has intimate knowledge about that area, meaning he or she should have visited it on numerous occasions. Does he or she need to have climbed every mountain in that area: of course not

One should create a mountain/rock page only if one stood on top of that mountain/rock (by whatever route, trail, etc...).

One should create a route page only if one hiked or climbed that trail or route personally (preferably in its entirety, but there can be reasonale exceptions).

Again, these are points I personally think should be standard on SP. There are exceptions as we have discussed before for obscure peaks in remote areas, etc...
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

The following user would like to thank SoCalHiker for this post
Sarah Simon

Re: Front Page

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:31 pm

I agree with the above. Except no exceptions. Just my opintion.

I passed by a obscure and remote peak in Yosemite last year, probably goes a couple years at least without anyone climbing it, and no one else would likely ever make a page for it. Sure, it would be better for me to make a page based on what I know of it, I was within a tenth of a mile of the summit (but I had other priorities that day). But I didn't do it, and there remains the smallest chance that someone else will climb it and they will decide to make a page. They should have that option without me taking it from them.

Or maybe I will go back there one day.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4162
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1196 times in 809 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Sarah Simon

Re: Front Page

Postby chugach mtn boy » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:38 pm

SoCalHiker wrote:To chip in here...

I think one should create an area page, if one has intimate knowledge about that area, meaning he or she should have visited it on numerous occasions. Does he or she need to have climbed every mountain in that area: of course not

One should create a mountain/rock page only if one stood on top of that mountain/rock (by whatever route, trail, etc...).

One should create a route page only if one hiked or climbed that trail or route personally (preferably in its entirety, but there can be reasonale exceptions).

Again, these are points I personally think should be standard on SP. There are exceptions as we have discussed before for obscure peaks in remote areas, etc...

With Suedpfalz, the author set out to create a skeleton to which others would add. The intro said:
When hiking in the heart of the area, at the town of Dahn, I "conceived" this project: similarly to what Moni has done with the Sächsische Schweiz Page I want to start an area guide on Summitpost. My hope obviously is that the many climbers out there will start posting their route beta about the routes they have done in the area. I am aware that this task can become Herculean: there are 120 towers and 200 "massifs" in the Südpfalz region. If all ran well, we could expect up to 500+ routes on this page (In which case a subdivision into smaller areas surely would be opportune). But for the time being there is a white spot on the SP landscape which now will be filled.


This is an area with hundreds of tiny crags, not peaks. The author created an organizational structure with nice links and illustrations. As part of the structure, the author also added 74 of the crags as linked rock pages, and apparently he had climbed most (but not all) of these little outcrops. He did not attempt to post any routes.

This seems in keeping with the spirit of the policy.
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 887
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 109 posts

Re: Front Page

Postby SoCalHiker » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:49 pm

chugach mtn boy wrote:...
This seems in keeping with the spirit of the policy.


I was not talking about that page in particular, rather making a general comment
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

The following user would like to thank SoCalHiker for this post
chugach mtn boy

Re: Front Page

Postby SoCalHiker » Tue Aug 09, 2011 10:50 pm

mrchad9 wrote:I agree with the above. Except no exceptions. Just my opintion.


No exception is equally fine with me
User Avatar
SoCalHiker

 
Posts: 713
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:12 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
Thanked: 147 times in 88 posts

Re: Front Page

Postby butitsadryheat » Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:01 pm

chugach mtn boy wrote:
SoCalHiker wrote:To chip in here...

I think one should create an area page, if one has intimate knowledge about that area, meaning he or she should have visited it on numerous occasions. Does he or she need to have climbed every mountain in that area: of course not

One should create a mountain/rock page only if one stood on top of that mountain/rock (by whatever route, trail, etc...).

One should create a route page only if one hiked or climbed that trail or route personally (preferably in its entirety, but there can be reasonale exceptions).

Again, these are points I personally think should be standard on SP. There are exceptions as we have discussed before for obscure peaks in remote areas, etc...

With Suedpfalz, the author set out to create a skeleton to which others would add. The intro said:
When hiking in the heart of the area, at the town of Dahn, I "conceived" this project: similarly to what Moni has done with the Sächsische Schweiz Page I want to start an area guide on Summitpost. My hope obviously is that the many climbers out there will start posting their route beta about the routes they have done in the area. I am aware that this task can become Herculean: there are 120 towers and 200 "massifs" in the Südpfalz region. If all ran well, we could expect up to 500+ routes on this page (In which case a subdivision into smaller areas surely would be opportune). But for the time being there is a white spot on the SP landscape which now will be filled.


This is an area with hundreds of tiny crags, not peaks. The author created an organizational structure with nice links and illustrations. As part of the structure, the author also added 74 of the crags as linked rock pages, and apparently he had climbed most (but not all) of these little outcrops. He did not attempt to post any routes.

This seems in keeping with the spirit of the policy.


Yes, but the creator of the Regional page is dangerously close to having as many Power Points as the OP (it would affect the REI discount and steal the spotlight from an obviously superior person). We cannot have that, "spirit" be damned. :wink:
User Avatar
butitsadryheat

 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: Bakersfield, California, United States
Thanked: 1377 times in 1007 posts

Previous

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.