Montana Matt wrote:Initially I thought it would probably take a week or more to make the changes to the database and code to implement a change to the voting system. But if all that has to change is the way the score is calculated, that should only be a day or two. Once that's done, I can move onto something else.

That is great to hear! I had hoped, and anticipated, that it might not be too prohibitive. I truely do think all that is needed is a change to the calculation formula, not a change to the voting process itself. Perhaps this will end up an even easier change than like/dislike system (which requires an interface change).

Note that if we change the range of page scores, I think at some point it may be worth changing how the power points are calculated for the page owners. Currently (according to the faqs) this is an exponential function for high scoring pages. If we modified this (and even simpler basic formula change) perhaps the concern over high profile pages and their scores would be mitigated. I have some ideas here two but didn't want to pile on unitl you were ready. It's much simpler than the page score calculation. (Also I think less important... since it is more invisible to the users... but the impacts will be seen when folks see their profile pages).

Montana Matt wrote:However, the Featured Pages on the right side bar and the POTX images could be randomized to some degree, based on score and a random element. Let me know if you have concrete ideas of what you'd like to see changed Dow and I promise I will listen very intently.

High level thoughts I have include making at least one third of the featured articles, TRs, and pages change daily. The daily change could be to a randomly selected previously featured page (there are TONS in the database by now, that most users have never had the chance to notice). I would change featured pages more frequently in general. Perhaps instead of having them up there for two weeks at a time, have them for 2 days at a time for 25% of the time over a 1 month period (automatically popping in and back out along with other manually selected pages).

I would also change the layout, to put rapidly changing things at the top (like new members and featured photos) and stale stuff at the bottom (like the 'New to SP' links). We all want new members to see those links, but I don't think we are getting the full value of the home page asset with the links where they are.

Thanks Matt. For one, putting Chad in charge of the front page selection process would be huge for summitpost in my opinion, I mean the entire front page. That is bringing in new blood, that is making a big change. Here is an individual willing to randomize the selection process to no selfish interest of his own. That is not the way your volunteer site operators do it now, particulary Gangolf. Maybe adding Liba and another "technical climber" or two to the elf population whilst at the same time asking some of these old white men who have being doing it for 10 years+ to step down. Think youth, think women (horrible representation here compared to MP), even think race. Think diversity.

Matt, my interest in moving on far exceeds trying to compete with SP. Like I said, as far as you, Josh and Ryle are concerned, if anything, I would rather keep a working relationship. However, I refuse to have Gangolf and others continue to run a site into the ground I have so much vested in, whilst promoting their own obscure, work. I put too much effort into it. I have brought other fresh faces like Liba on board only to see them leave eventually because it is so stale and boring.

If Scott and others think folks attracted to the site have more use for German hikes over Red Rock trad climbing (I have yet ever to print a page for a hike, I have printed tons from the internet for beta on climbs), then that is the site you will be, like I said, you sure do not need to be a climbing site.

Josh emailed me, so I might as well get it out there....somebody who is passionate about this stuff might exist here....losing my Google ranking at first does not bother me Matt....folks who need and use my beta will find it again.......over time, it will sort back to the top. I am willing to spend the money to do it right and get it back to the top as well. Unlike you, outdoor adventure is my full time business. I thought it easier that I climb, write and post and you take care of the rest, but that has not happened, the site has gone south instead. This is going to take me forever I am sure...so I am not going any where overnight, will definitely pay attention to your changes. Sorry I have never gotten specific enough for you, I don't speak programmers language. The stuff I notice is glaring to anyone who contributes. I realize from your vantage point, you simply don't see it.

Josh asked me some questions, this is what I wrote to him....

"I want to pay someone, and trust me, I realize this is not a one person job in terms of qualifications, to manage the copy and set up of my data as close to what it looks like now, although of course I am open to whatever design somebody wants to get creative with, to gearbeans.com. It is my intent to eventually make this a retail site where algorithms are set up to reward buyers with store credit for their beta contributions. Been proposing it for ten years....was a huge deal back then. Ten years ago, I had sit downs with the CEO of REI, one of the founders of Backcountry.com (before they sold out to Liberty) and the 2nd man over at Sierra Trading Post. It was a $250K project.

I have climbing partners/friends who work both at SAP and Google. I understand the complexities with which I am dealing. I also understand that they have softened a ton in ten years. Still, it is no easy or cheap venture. But if I never get started, it will never come to fruition. I have the funds, but what I need first is to secure my own beta and make sure it is set up to rank in Google, whatever costs that involve. From there, we can proceed. You are young and appear to be ambitious. Maybe you have interest. Bottom line, I am willing to pay someone to set up a whole new site that performs the same function as SP at this current time, allowing my beta to always be accessed and ranked from true searches."

I need to move forward with this Matt. I doubt highly you really want to shake up your volunteer site administrators, even though in my opinion, they are as responsible for the stagnated condition of the site today as you owners are. The site needs new blood and I just don't see you willing to do that. We might as well work hand in hand. I do trust you, Josh and Ryle, no worries. I am going to keep adding beta as I always have. I just need to get this moved over to something much more dynamite, with partnering websites or on my own. Been talking about it way to long.

Chad, making a database of pages only already featured, or making that a minimum requirement, would be a fail in my opinion. Gangolf has never been objective in his selections. That would move from boring selections to randomly boring selections. There are so many gems that he ignores either because he does not understand them (technical submissions) or the submitters are not part of the old guard. Rather select some minimum requirement score...maybe five 10-10 votes (and of course whatever that would equate to in the new voting system)... same with photos....lower the bar considerably. Folks without friends here have made great submissions....if five others have noticed it and gave it a thumbs up (whatever that equates to in the new voting arrangement), it should be worthy of flowing through the random stream. Same with photos. Lowering the bar is the only way to eliminate the games and avatars. Dilute manipulators ability to bore us to death with the same stuff. Making it change frequently will allow many good pages to get noticed. The page should look different every time someone refreshes it, if that can be done within budgetary constraints for Matt.

If Scott and others think folks attracted to the site have more use for German hikes over Red Rock trad climbing (I have yet ever to print a page for a hike, I have printed tons from the internet for beta on climbs), then that is the site you will be, like I said, you sure do not need to be a climbing site.

Actually Dow, I am completely clueless as to what you are talking about. My name was mentioned and I tuned in by trying to point out (especially to you, but to everyone else as well) that in several ways, technical climbing pages (and the acceptance of such) have actually increased on SP (using cragging pages and waterfall climbs as an example).

I think it is true that more people look at and climb the easier stuff (such as the Mount Whitney Trail used in an example above) than they do the Wishbone Arete on Robson (which isn’t considered to be an extreme route), but that doesn’t make the information on the technical route any less valuable.

I have said for a long time that the most valuable information on SP were the obscure peaks and routes that aren’t published anywhere else. That still doesn’t mean that those pages are the ones that will receive the most hits, votes, or whatever.

As far as your German routes example, I think it obvious that from the map on my profile, I don’t have much interest in Germany. This is my own wish list (the rest is written; I just don’t have it all in html):

http://www.summitpost.org/scott-s-wish-list/335481

But yes, I do think the German pages do have a place regardless of whether I want to use them or not.

You are correct that there are less technical routes added (or featured on SP front page) than there are class 1-4 routes added. It is simply because more people climb them (or hike them if you don’t want to use the work climb) and add them to SP. It would be nice if everyone on SP was a 5.11c climber, but they just aren’t. As far as the front page goes, I wonder what percentage of technical routes vs. non-technical routes featured vs. added is. I don’t know; I haven’t paid attention.

I have added a bunch of hikes, and even several technical routes (waterfall ice, rock, canyon, etc.), but most of us do not climb as much as you do and aren’t at the same level. The only solution is for technical climbers (such as you) to keep adding more stuff. Personally, I look up to those who climb better than me. I think it obvious that you are one of those who do. In fact, I’ve neglected the Canadian Rockies for so long because I’ve been unable to get time off in summer (in winter, most but not all of the peaks I want to climb might be beyond my experience level). Now the tables have turned and I can. I was going to ask you if I can come visit you in Canmore (you offered before) and it would be great to even do a climb with you, but I am not at the same level as you are. I probably never will be; two kids, a full time job, a lovely wife with heart problems that all take priority over climbs. For you, climbing is your life (correct me if wrong), but for most of us, it’s just a part of our life.

I met you in person and you were a great guy. I am confused about some of the comments you have made lately.

There are so many gems that he ignores either because he does not understand them (technical submissions) or the submitters are not part of the old guard.

I do not know, but I thought Gangolf only chooses trip reports. Is this correct? I don’t know who chooses the mountain pages to be featured. Right now I see one page from Italy/Switzerland, one page from Italy and four from the United States. As far as routes go, there is one class 3 and one trail. Yes, it would be nice if more technical routes were featured, but I don’t think that they should always be the only ones featured. I actually don’t follow the front page much (except for the forum and trip reports).

Few share my viewpoint, but for me, I’d like the obscure places featured rather than the “popular” mountains/routes. That’s only my opinion though.

Anyway, if being featured on the front page is so important to you (not your stuff, but all of the gems), why not nominate them in the thread?

recommendations-for-front-page-featured-mountains-quot-t31663.html

I've never nominated anything there (not important to me), but choosing between 10820 routes and 12220 mountain pages can't be easy. This is just a friendly suggestion, not a complaint.

To acknowledge some of Dow's sentiments... I never understood why becoming an elf (or a mod... that is what most of them have been) was a lifetime appointment. Sure some have decided to leave on their own, but I think in general it would be best if it was a 1-2 year gig as a default. Also would be best if the elf activities (meaning dealing with content and not forums) were the primary focus. This would including both working with members, but also working with Matt when he has time available. Creating incentives for new members to participate in online activity and invigorating the home page should be their priorities.

Matt- I could make a front page mockup and get it to you within a week. I assume it is no rush since as you state it is easy to do.

For calculating power points from page scores... I think the following would be much more reflective of pages relative true value versus the current exponential formula. We would need to adjust it depending on the final variables in the page score formula (for example probably change it to a second power function or even less if scores start at 50% instead of 70%). Note I haven't put much thought into the specific numbers yet, but think this format of the score to a power times a constant might be a good one. I would need to look at lots of examples to settle on the variables.

Mountains and Rocks/Areas and Ranges = (Page Score)^3 * 12
Routes = (Page Score)^3 * 10 [this increases their relative value from the existing standard]
Articles = (Page Score)^3 * 15
Albums = (Page Score)^5 * 2
Images = (Page Score)^20 * 5 [keeps most images very low on the score, but the most popular ones worth about 1-2 points]
Other objects = (Page Score)^3 * 8

Dow...
Yes- I agree with your last comment above. Currently there are a lot of slots on the home page, I see no reason to treat all the articles, all the mountain pages, etc... the same. Some could be almost totally random with a minimum criteria as you describe, whereas the next slot might have a slightly stricter criteria. This way score could have some probability of getting selected but every good page would have a chance. And some spots could be manually chosen (if we want to assure the highest quality beta is chosen, some manual encouragement would be good as long as folks have confidence in the individual).

Montana Matt wrote:I'll take a look at the power point calculation in a bit. The scripts on the development server just stopped running, so I'm going to see what power points look like now after the making the score calculation change.

Thanks Matt. Based on my understanding of the existing calculation the change will result in some pages being worth far too much relative to many/most other pages, but it is difficult for me to see what individual pages are worth with different scores currently.

Montana Matt wrote:Just thinking a bit here...what if we were to dedicate some portion of the front page specifically to technical stuff? Any routes that are submitted that have the tags "Trad Climbing," "Sport Climbing" or any other tags that seemed appropriate would be the only ones considered for placement in that section of the front page. Does that sound like something worthwhile?

Yes it does to me and I will include it in the mockup later. I had already planned to try to include some sort of theme to more sections (such as a small how-to section) if there is enough content to justify it.

Montana Matt wrote:Some sort of "term length," such as 2 years or so, for elfdom isn't a bad idea. But would there definitely be another person willing and able to fill that role when a particular person's term was nearing its end? And how to go about choosing new elves?

I think a term length could be used as a default. In some, but not most, circumstances it would be appropriate to keep an incumbent (such as with Bob Sihler). But not keeping one shouldn't be considered a rejection to a former elf... it would be the norm. More participation and new ideas are good.

Choosing the correct people is just as important. They need to understand the needs of the site and community as a whole, and not push personal viewpoints (in their new capacity). They need to be active members, and have the confidence of other active members. And have (GOOD) ideas! I think having the existing/previous slate of elves choose future ones is a mistake and creates an oligarchy. They should have imput, but so should others. Would be good to solicit suggestions from a selection of the most prominent and active members at the time. Currently I would invest heavily in suggestions by folks like Liba, Dow, Scott, Sarah Simon, Marcsoltan, gimpilator, mazzani, ZeeJay, etc... (these are folks I am more familiar with and thus there are others who could also be appropriate). Some of these would make great elves themselves, and some I think would not (but I think would have good suggestions for others to consider). Elves would then be supported by people who are familiar with the site needs and who are invested enough to have contributed heavily themselves. As I have expressed in the past, I would be interested as well (not in doing anything with the forums, as most tend to do, or even in working with individual new members as some of the remaining elves do, but in working to improve the site dynamics of the content side).

Matt- that power dropped significantly I think is not surprising. The new formula results in a lot more pages being in the 70-85% range, and those are not worth very much on SP. That is why I think we will need to adjust the value of those pages, so that members still feel it is worth submitting a page that might only have a 75% score.

butitsadryheat wrote:What a pompous arrogant douchenozzle.

The world does not revolve around one person.

Methinks it is a case of little guys syndrome

Just stop. We all get what you are saying. You made your point.

Plain and simple, IF DOW LEAVES, THERE IS A BIG CHUNK OF THE SITE THAT WILL GO WITH HIM. Stop your schoolyard bullshit.

Dow has contributed GOOD STUFF far IN EXCESS of anyone here. You may not be able to climb 5.13 or use his beta very much, but give the guy some respect --- if not just for the sheer amount of TIME and EFFORT to put up a COUPLE HUNDRED QUALITY pages.You certainly don't have to kiss his ass, but get over YOURself.

I'm disgusted with this place right now. This place is headed for butterfly pictures again... that's why I left last time. Taking the high road sucks sometimes.

Fletch wrote: This place is headed for butterfly pictures again...

Let's not forget about moths, toadstools, llamas, unicorns, and fairies ....

You two are working hard on good changes and I definitely appreciate it, thanks. I am off to Jtree....which means no Internet vs ignoring the thread. My only 2c, again, is that you cannot let current values mean much. The voting thing has been a friendship thing at SP, not as much a quality or interesting factor. That applies 10 fold to most items featured on the front page, right side and left side which have weighted scores now due to exposure, not quality or natural interest. As broad as you can make the randomization, the better in my opinion. I think you both might already be addressing that above. Starting to get over my head.

Good elfs are not the ones begging for it...but rather folks who need to be asked Matt. Similar to hiring good employees and/or a board of directors. I would sure ask her (Liba), Mazzani, mountaingazelle and Sarah, and younger members in general. Most will say no, but I am sure you will come up with a few good ones. Good contributers I know that know climbing besides the women mentioned are Scott, Bill Kerr, Matt Lemke, Chugach mtn boy, AlbertoRampini, Marcsoltan..some young new climbers willing to contribute...PanamaRed, awilsondc, Jurgen...I am sure I have missed a few worth mentioning....CHANGE IS THE MAIN THING.

There are many other diverse climber types that should have been asked a long time ago when they were active, i.e. Radek but I am sure most have no interest now. The climbers have waned on this site in a big way, it is no coincidence Scott. They had a much bigger representation when I joined, rock, ice and alpine. Scott, those kind of threads you reference (recommendations) always look like one, two or three members posting repeatedly as to what they recommend. Most good contributors/members don't have time for those kind of threads. Take the time to answer a question about gear, sure, good and valued forums threads...but most of these threads you reference, have been seen by many of us over the years as kind of sleazy; cheap, tit for tat backslapping.