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

Quality Slipping?

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

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby Kiefer » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:05 am

butitsadryheat wrote:Of course, if this person would stop putting up crap pages, then the quality would stop slipping, almost immediately. 8)

HEY! I'll let ya know that my crap smells like roses! -or whatever I ate that night :ugeek:
Thanks for the props dryheat!!!

But yah, it was cool to see the person in question make some recent changes and try. I think the biggest problem with new posters to this site is that they put something up with the best intentions but lose interest quickly due to the 'peanut butter' aggrevation that is HTML or get distracted by other things in life (family, beer, Family Guy etc.).
There are a few things solidly irritating about this site, make no mistake. But I do believe SP and our members get a lot of things right. Ya gotta admit, we have some good, quality pages on this wiki-site.
If anything, perhaps SP is going through yet another identity crisis, growing pains.

I harp and throw shit on poor submissions like anyone else. But it's something I'm trying to change into more of a mentor or peer advice platform.
One thing I CAN do without though, are all these recent profiles of dentists, wanna-be salesmen (or women) or 'hipsters' trying to make a name for themselves by flodding search engines at SP's expense.
User Avatar

Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Estes Park, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 117 times in 66 posts

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby CSUMarmot » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:58 am

I always miss the fun threads.
Dammit kid get off mah lawn!!!
NoCo Chris
User Avatar

Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:12 am
Location: Loveland, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 70 times in 46 posts

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:00 am

Check out the 2nd featured article on the front page. LOL!
User Avatar

Posts: 4434
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1279 times in 874 posts

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby Humphrey » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:36 am

User Avatar

Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 3:04 am
Location: Arizona, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby Scott » Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:52 pm

I've been gone, so I missed out on this thread.

Each elf has things he pays more attention to than others, and I think I'm the one most invested in checking on quality of new submissions; I especially watch the mountains, areas, routes, and canyons, and trip reports to a lesser extent. I pay virtually no attention to the other page types unless someone calls attention to them.

However, sometimes I miss something or see an incomplete page go up and forget to check up on it a couple days later. That's why it's helpful for members to point out bad pages.

Bob, I often point out bad/incomplete pages, but here is one that was never addressed:


Other than one sentence, the entire page is inaccurate and bogus. The photos aren't even of the right mountain.

Attempts to help the submitter were made:

User Avatar

Posts: 8109
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 1075 times in 557 posts

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby ScottyS » Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:19 am

Ahhhh some things never change. Pass the popcorn.
User Avatar

Posts: 703
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2002 10:08 pm
Location: Reno (again), Nevada, United States
Thanked: 1 time in 1 post

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby Scott » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:11 pm

So what do you propose? You know the Flat Tops pretty well. Do you want the page? I'd rather see it adopted than have to delete

Unfortunately, I think it should be deleted. Yes I know the Flat Tops well, but I only have one or two usable photos of the peak and the photos on the page aren't of the right peak. As said on the other thread, my bet is the owner of the page stayed in the Sweetwater Resort with his family and hiked to the Turrett Creek Meadows, which is still a fine hike. To me it appears that he made no attempt what so ever to climb or to describe Shingle Peak on the page, and instead just pretended that Turret Creek Meadows was somehow the same thing as Shingle Peak.

To me an incomplete or vague page, or even no page at all is better than a page that is flat out wrong. Six plus years was enough to improve the page and the inaccuracies were pointed out years ago. Someone else will eventually add a better page to the peak.

Sometimes pages that look good aren't actually any good if you actually read them and the page in question is a good example. Another page on a nearby mountain isn't very good either, but although it doesn't look as good to an untrained eye, it isn't flat out inaccurate, just vague:


Vague information is still better than inaccurate information.
Last edited by Scott on Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User Avatar

Posts: 8109
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 1075 times in 557 posts

Re: Quality Slipping?

Postby Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:18 pm

Just turn it into a trip report. It reads like one and the pictures are appropriate for that type of page. That way the guy does not loose what there is on the page (little as it may be) and it clears the way for a new page to be made by someone else.
User Avatar
Bubba Suess

Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:15 pm
Location: Mount Shasta, California, United States
Thanked: 183 times in 105 posts


Return to Site Feedback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

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