Rockclimber77 wrote:There are many other ways of "getting your information to the public" on summit post if you don't like a route or area description then just attach a trip report or add a route description or one of the other options available and simply make it better yourself.. try and avoid cluster maybe the highest points or hits will take priority in the search engine making your now new and improved description the first one we see in our search to find beta on that route.

Rockclimber77 has it right. Some great pages leave the adventure to those looking for it. Adding a tr is fine for those that want to share info the isn't shared initially, and it keeps it YOURs.

Don't go wiki.

But, I do like the pictures, summit registers, and trip reports others attach. I gives some great info and depth.

chugach mtn boy wrote:Josh Lewis wrote:

Not sure if this was already mentioned (a similar idea was), but if submitters had some kind of check box on the page to allow editors, this would completely make "wikifying" summitpost more appropriate because it would then be up to the users. Yeah I know you would still have some users who might not activate it, but I think many would.

If the idea of the check box is accepted, I would suggest having the check box appear next to every section when you are creating or editing a page. You can check the box next to sections you want to open for editing.

That's very helpful IMHO.

That's the only way I could accept any Wiki-like feature. But in some cases it's useful -- I put out a request for help on my Ozarks page and got three takers, as an example. The Adirondacks, Cascades and other ranges would be great for (optional) Wiki features.

Splitting up technical and non-technical routes is also a good idea. It wouldn't hurt to have SP become a leading source for non-technical routes. Existing trail sources suck, such as Backpacker's. Plus, Backpacker already uses SP for beta, most every issue, and making hiking routes more visible would help reach that market.

[Which reminds me of one of my pet ideas, repeatedly tossed out -- a "preferences" menu that would let users control what they see. Technical climbers could turn off non-technical routes and so on and so forth.]

O.k. maybe we should be looking at this as a more economic forum, as opposed to political, eg. hits per page and popularity on the web....number of visiters... not emotions of contributers this is a business.. what would make this site more popular.. ok facebook vs myspace mountain project vs summit post .... we all know who won the first battle..

Summitpost has a uniqueness unequaled by NONE. Why compare it with other sites? That would be pointless, as we're trying to make it BETTER.

"Hey Jude don't make it bad

Take a sad song and make it better

Remember to let her into your heart

Than you can start to make it better ..."

lcarreau wrote:Summitpost has a uniqueness unequaled by NONE. Why compare it with other sites? That would be pointless, as we're trying to make it BETTER.

I am not comparing it with other sites but i feel with the intelligent and loyal members this site has it should be far superior than mountain project, and i feel that it is... just trying to get the creative juices flowing is all I enjoy summit post.

Rockclimber77 wrote: I enjoy summit post.

Complete agreement! I'd enjoy it (even more) if people kept their pages updated, rather they be technical or non-technical or whatever. Time for a change.

Going wiki is the worst idea I've ever seen proposed for summitpost. If it does go that way, it's a sure bet that many will delete their pages and leave for good.

A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages. It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

Scott wrote:It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

Amen to that.

I do think owners have a responsibility to maintain their pages - or lose them. There are quite a few pages that were really good when first posted, but some haven't been updated in over 5 years and now have broken links and/or outdated information. I realize that a lot of work went into the initial edition of the page. But really, 5 years is way too long not to make any updates. If you're not going to maintain your pages, then you shouldn't create them in the first place.

A wiki style would discourage a lot of people from making pages, and some pages really do not need to be updated all that often. That being said when a page does not have the information that I need I first look in the additions and corrections section. If the information is not their a PM to the author often gets the information.

As far as abandoned pages if a person asks the elves to take over the page then the original author should have six months to revamp the page if necesary (necesity being at the discretion of the elves) especially for a low voted page or a popular page that needs lots of upkeep.

The idea of the author opening up certain sections to a wiki style edit is also helpful, but I think most of this is not really needed because most things can be handled in the current additions and corrections

A route is a route it does not matter whether it is class 1 or 5.17dA6Wi7Ai8M9 VII it is still a route. That being said I see no problem separtaing approaches/hikes from technical climbs. But if that is done it may also be wise to separate ice and mixed out at the same time(we already have a separte categorie for canyons which I don't think is entirely neccesary) and add a search feature similar to mountain projects.

Full Wiki: NO!

I've been a major peak page owner for almost 10 years....including three Rockie's state high points and the Grand Teton. As a page owner, I welcome input and changes, and strive to make the pages the most up-to-date resources that this site can offer. If these pages are not up to standard, then I want to know about it and will make immediate improvements or changes if necessary. The point is: I'm on this site every day to make sure that happens. If a page owner is slack and not doing their job, then something needs to be done. In the old days, we would band together, hijack the page, then give the page to a responsible owner. But now the site has grown and seems like something else needs to be done to fix the problem of out-of-date pages/owners.

No matter what procedure is decided, members need to be active and be responsible page owners. If they are not, then give their pages to someone who will keep the page up to the standard that the peak deserves.

Scott wrote:Going wiki is the worst idea I've ever seen proposed for summitpost. If it does go that way, it's a sure bet that many will delete their pages and leave for good.

A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages. It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

People deleting their pages would indeed suck. There are a TON of resources available. For that point, Admin "locking" pages that are well received and important isn't a bad idea, either (making it so they wouldn't be deleted, but maybe opened up to someone who wants to adopt the page, so as to not lose pages.)

Page abandonment/ignoring is a problem, however most people I have worked with add/fix/update/change things, or don't respond at all. Making "abandoned" pages easier to adopt (1 year of ignoring?) might help.

I do like the idea of an "open" box that other people can add info/update, as people do on MountainProject. Then owners can update it,but if it gets ignored for X-criterion, you can adopt it if you want to (or something).

Scott wrote:A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages.

I think this is the major issue on summitpost.

I think a more visible display of additions, corrections, and comments is reasonable.

I think wiki-style editing is a bad idea.

In my opinion, the problem isn't SummitPost. The problem is with some users.

First, many people do not like sharing knowledge of peaks that can be added to pages. In addition, many people who know of updated or better information do not even place "Comments", or "Additions & Corrections", or even contact many page owners. Hence, many pages get neglected.

Second, many page owners/creators either do not log-in regularly, or do not reply to or acknowledge updated information, or both.
------------

Giving basically anyone authority to make page updates and edits sets up potential problems such as page owners feeling attacked, page editors feeling like they can change whatever they want, and pages getting changes that really do not need them.

I would hate for SummitPost pages to lose their individual essences that occurs from different page owners creating such pages. I also would really hate for people to start whipping-out new Mountain/Rock pages with little/no information, and especially if those page owners have not even attempted the peaks in question, just expecting other people to "fill in the blanks". That would mark a new arena for potential pointbagging over providing resourceful information, something that runs rampant already with some SP members. That would be stupid, and then SummitPost would lose a lot of its luster.

I'm not suggesting there is not a viable solution to the concerns mentioned earlier, but the proposals mentioned need some sort of serious tweaking. I do not have the answers for that, but I do know that wiki is a terrible idea.

I think that an open section at the bottom of each page with access from anyone would improve the pages. This would be a great place to note changes, such as the recent experience that I had when I got to an access road and found it closed for logging with no mention of that on the mountain's page.

RobSC wrote:I think that an open section at the bottom of each page with access from anyone would improve the pages. This would be a great place to note changes, such as the recent experience that I had when I got to an access road and found it closed for logging with no mention of that on the mountain's page.

I think that is a proposal possibly worth exploring, but only with the added caveat that page owners/administrators can remove comments from the open section at will.