mrchad9 wrote:Bullshit Montana Matt. You and I have discussed specific needs in the past, and Bob Sihler as well. You promptly follow up by agreeing to ideas and doing exactly nothing for 10 months.

Use some criteria rather than doing something random and unproductive.

I feel as though I have been using very important criteria to choose what to work on when I work on SP. And you obviously have a different idea what "exactly nothing" is than I do. Just because the work I do for the site is something that can't be seen visually doesn't mean that it's not work. I've spent many, many hours working on making the server faster to accommodate an ever growing stream of traffic to the site. True, I haven't made any significant changes to the user interface or appearance of SP in a long time. But what good is a site that looks good and has all kinds of new and cool features, but doesn't run? Traffic to the site has increased 50% in each of the last two years. That didn't happen by accident and accommodating that much of a traffic increase required a lot of changes to the server and server software. The criteria under which I've been choosing what to work on is directly related to keeping the site online. I've simply not had the time to make improvements and changes to the site. Keeping the site running seems to me to be the highest priority. Changing and updating the front page, as you suggest in your example, would be very far down the list from keeping SP online.

And I would love to spend more time working on SP making improvements/enhancements, but unfortunately I currently have 3 other things in my life that could be called "jobs" that take up a lot of my time. In the winter months, one of them slows down significantly, so that's why I'm able to do some work now.

mrchad9 wrote:No. Matt does not volunteer for free to help this site. He is one of the site owners. Though he likes to keep that on the down low so many can continue to assume he is volunteering rather than neglecting the site

Not sure how I'm getting accused of keeping the fact that I'm part owner of SP on the "down low." I don't ever recall trying to hide that fact. And no, I don't volunteer for SP, but my ownership in the site is very minor. The time I spend working on SP could certainly be spent more lucratively working on something else where I have full ownership (one of my other websites/businesses) or where I get paid by the hour (my contracting work). I work on SP as I find the time and desire to do so. Right now I have both for the first time in many months. Your flagrant, abrasive and very unhelpful posts aren't helping with the desire portion of my availability though

Dow Williams wrote:You cannot afford to pay a professional to do this work?

I take it that is a no?

Dow Williams wrote:

Dow Williams wrote:You cannot afford to pay a professional to do this work?

I take it that is a no?

No, I personally can't afford to pay someone to do the work.

Bring the chat back and take those games away please

"Traffic to the site has increased 50% in each of the last two years."

Assuming the increased ad revenue can't cover it, I am more than willing to donate money to hire a professional "legitimate" concern to make design changes for SP. You know my email.

Josh your pages demonstrate a lot of programming knowledge, but hijacking the look and feel of the site, or changing it at all, is not what is needed. More substantive changes, that would be easy to implement, that would improve access to content and usability of the site are more productive. The color schemes are fine as is. If your girlfriend has gotten lazy and boring and does nothing all day but sit on the couch watching TV and eating Cheetos, dying her hair is not the solution.

Matt you seem to be wanting props for keeping the site running, but in reality I think most would agree that is the bare minimum of what should be done. How do you and the other owners reconcile spending less hours on the site you own than many of the members here spend for free adding content every year? And with all this extra traffic you can't get a real programmer? How do the ad revenues now compare to two years ago?

Matt, thanks for keeping the site running. It does seem to be faster lately.

Anyway, most of the changes actually needed (at least in my opinion) are pretty minor. For example, the email system doesn't work and needs to go. You can't respond to an email, so it doesn't do any good to recieve them.

If some FAQ's or intructions could be displayed right when you add a new page, it would really help new members.

Other than minor details, the site is perfectly functional (assuming it doesn't crash or get bogged down-which it sounds like you have been keeping up on), which is fine by me. Most people come here to share and recieve climbing beta I think, so in that sense most things are fine the way they are.

I like chat.

Scott you don't have much basis for saying most members don't want chat. The number of members who post in such threads on the topic is not representative of the membership as a whole. I'd bet any amount you like that the majority of members are completely indifferent. Heck most probably never even knew about it.

Not sure why anyone feels the need to be against it. If you don't use it, be indifferent. If some folks find it useful it doesn't stop you from avoiding it.

mrchad9 wrote:Matt you seem to be wanting props for keeping the site running

I need no recognition. That is not the type of personality I have. I was just stating that what I do is much, much more than "absolutely nothing" as you were implying.

mrchad9 wrote:How do you and the other owners reconcile spending less hours on the site you own than many of the members here spend for free adding content every year?

Many, many websites function in this way; so do many businesses. Just because something is owned by a particular person or group of people does not mean that they are the ones that put the most time and energy into it or even directly manage it.

mrchad9 wrote:How do the ad revenues now compare to two years ago?

Ad revenue has increased substantially, but server costs have also increased substantially. SP is not really monetized as it could be. Ads are actually fairly sparse on the site, per Josh and Ryle's request. And SP uses a ton of bandwidth and storage space every month and has to have a very powerful server now to keep up with all of the traffic. Hiring someone to do work isn't completely out of the question, but it's not something that's likely to happen unless there is a clear need, which isn't the case at the moment.

Chad, if you are unhappy about the way SP is being run, you're free to spend your online time elsewhere or change your temperament. Your soured attitude isn't helpful here. If anyone else is unhappy about the way SP is managed, feel free to send me a PM or an email about what you'd like to see changed and I'd be happy to listen and do what I can. I plan to work on changes to SP almost exclusively for the next 3 months, so there will almost certainly be some changes/improvements to the site in that time frame.

Take a look at Mountain Project...they are way ahead of you. They don't have "elves" constantly plastering their own bodies of work on the front page and ignoring those for who they have a hard-on for. Take a leap of faith and make the site more dynamic. Be more objective, don't just listen to people who kiss your ass. Listen to those of us who challenge you to do better as well. Invest in the adventure community, real people who do interesting things, that is your market. The current elf population has a hard-on for climbers, both rock and ice. How many of those do you have left? who contribute to the site? That is a big part of the market for the internet site you bought into with your time. Allow the viewers at large (not select members or even the member body) to determine what is interesting, or not, in terms of promoting the site. That is how successful internet enterprises function.

From this perspective (dynamic/interesting) SP is practically dead. It is worth many times less then what its potential was in 2007, not just because of the economy, but because of nothing interesting to offer in terms of growth or new "contributing" members. Your visitations are up due to solid beta on the site that have gained traction in Google order...because it is worthy. That part has always been well done on SP...the format for encouraging and improving detailed beta pages, etc.

If you want to do it right, but can't afford to as you state and don't have enough ad revenue to cover it, I am more than willing to DONATE money to hire a true third party designer to perform the makeovers you want versus handing it over to someone who has shown a propensity for manipulation. You really need to start steering the site away from that kind of conduct if you want it to ever earn its keep and pay you for your time.

Scott wrote:Matt, thanks for keeping the site running. It does seem to be faster lately.

Anyway, most of the changes actually needed (at least in my opinion) are pretty minor. For example, the email system doesn't work and needs to go. You can't respond to an email, so it doesn't do any good to recieve them.

If some FAQ's or intructions could be displayed right when you add a new page, it would really help new members.

Other than minor details, the site is perfectly functional (assuming it doesn't crash or get bogged down-which it sounds like you have been keeping up on), which is fine by me. Most people come here to share and recieve climbing beta I think, so in that sense most things are fine the way they are.

Bring the chat back

Diego, you seem to be missing the point that by far and away most SP members do not want this feature.

Do you have any statistics about that

Thanks for the constructive feedback Dow.

Dow Williams wrote:Take a look at Mountain Project...they are way ahead of you. They don't have "elves" constantly plastering their own bodies of work on the front page and ignoring those for who they have a hard-on for. Take a leap of faith and make the site more dynamic.

Do you know how exactly MountainProject chooses which articles are on the front page? They appear to have some links to Rockandice.com which may be generated by some piece of code given to them by R&I. But the other articles, the ones from their own site, do you know their criteria for selecting them? If it is something that could be coded, I'd be happy to do it. Though coding such things usually isn't as effective as having someone with a finger on the pulse of the site choosing manually.

Dow Williams wrote:Allow the viewers at large (not select members or even the member body) to determine what is interesting, or not, in terms of promoting the site. That is how successful internet enterprises function.

Agreed. I don't take part in the updating of the front page, but I thought that people submitted suggestions (here in the forum?) and pages were chosen objectively. I guess that isn't the case or doesn't appear to be so?

Dow Williams wrote:From this perspective (dynamic/interesting) SP is practically dead.

I also agree with this. The site has become very stagnant. It is way overdue for something interesting and new to offer to members.

Dow Williams wrote:If you want to do it right, but can't afford to as you state and don't have enough ad revenue to cover it, I am more than willing to DONATE money to hire a true third party designer to perform the makeovers you want versus handing it over to someone who has shown a propensity for manipulation. You really need to start steering the site away from that kind of conduct if you want it to ever earn its keep and pay you for your time.

Nothing has been handed over to anyone yet. And there is only one person (at least at this point) capable of directly making changes to SP code and HTML and that's me, so there isn't much risk in asking for help from the community at large. Josh approached me, showed me some of his work and I have to admit I was pretty impressed with his design skills. I've worked with many professional designers in my career as a web programmer and "professional" is a subjective word. Josh's websites look every bit as professional as ones I've seen that cost a fortune to make and he's offering to help for free.

Your offer to donate to help fund a new design for SP is a very generous one and I will keep it in mind. Should the design work not turn out well or stall for some reason, I do have your email

Do you have any statistics about that?

No, just threads (which are linked as related at the bottom of this thread). I never participated in them because it wasn't a pressing issue to me.

Many people have said they thought it made SP too much like FB and were worried that it would attract the wrong crowd, or people on the site for the "wrong" reasons. I'm mostly indifferent, but think that if the majority of members want it gone, it should be gone and if the majority want it to stay, then it should stay.

If you think that most people really do want it, then you (or Chad) should start a poll on the matter. In fact, it could be an excuse to bring the polling feature back. That feature I do miss.

Matt... we've traded PMs in the past, just as you are requesting folks do here. Your response was that you liked the suggestions but didn't plan to act on any of them.

If you think I have a soured attitude I assure you it is just a byproduct of frustration. Apparently (based on your recent posts above) you are trying to make decisions on how to change and run this site but you don't even really know how it is being run or used by most of the members today!

And I urge you to spend more time on functionality, features, accessibility, and interfaces than cosmetic and inconsequential stuff like colors schemes and shading and the look and feel. Folks are seeking real maintenance, not a paint job. If any time is going to be spent just make it count.

Scott wrote:

Do you have any statistics about that?

No.

Don't follow saying what SPers think then...