mrchad9 wrote:And Bob, I respect much of what you have done here... but I never suggested anything close to a wrecking ball. I said if you didn't build a page you shouldn't have rights to it. BIG difference. You are intentionally distorting my comments just as Scott distorted my ideas when we were discussing a dynamic section for open user additions. You didn't see me intentionally distorting your views. And you are the only one that played the 'it needs to be this way or I'm leaving' card. My opinion of your approach has changed. Just not good form I think.

You have every right to disagree with me, but I object to your statement that Scott and I, and anyone else for that matter, are intentionally distorting your statements, just as I object to your publicly deciding what Brian Kalet's motives are for having certain pages.

To me, you are trying to apply a wrecking ball because you seem to want to apply your idea immediately and retroactively with no fair warning and no fair chance. It is that aspect to which I object. Scott and I have principled objections to some of your ideas, and since you stated them openly, we are responding openly in turn; I would have preferred to see this issue raised in a private forum or through email among the staff, not this way. You seem to be taking our principled objection as a personal impugnation, which it is not.

If we are misrepresenting you, perhaps it is not due to malice or stupidity but due to the way you have presented your positions.

And I am not taking a my-way-or-the-highway approach. If SP is going to move in a direction I don't feel comfortable with, then I feel I should be out of the way. Getting out of the way is different from trying to stop it. I have stated my opinions. My preference is to follow Matt's idea and start right now from scratch. If, instead, we just start taking pages from active members without making a fresh start and giving them a fair chance, then I just do not want to be a part of that.

^^^^I agree with Bob. 100%.^^^^

The Avalanche Gulch page is primarily an incorporation of the other posts that other users had made onto the page brought into the main page, with very limited actual content from the current owner (who is your buddy by the way... that hasn't slipped me).

Just about everyone from SP is my buddy. I have never met the person in question, but helped him on some pages (as I have with dozens of other members).

PS, if you think that I am biased towards this member, see that on some of his pages I have given a lower vote than everyone else:

http://www.summitpost.org/baker-mountain/votes/155069

Anyway, my profile pages says, and has said for years:

I do not mind answering questions or giving advice as to any of the mountains I have climbed, so if you are looking for more information, feel free to email me. Also, I do not mind helping new members with their pages. I am not an expert, but if you need any help with your pages, I will be happy to do so.

And I do acknowledge that you, Scott, in particular, made this as unpleasant an experience as any I have had on this site for some time

I disagreed with aspects of your proposed changes on this site at all and will said so. We disagree on the voting system (and we probably will never agree on that; it is unlikely that you will like any of my proposals; and I did let it go) and the way that this situation concerning the Avalanche Gulch page was handled. It is very unpleasant for me as well.

I agree with much of what you say on this matter, just not the way it is done.

I agree with you on:

Poor quality and inaccuracies need to be addressed (and inaccuracies pointed out in a timely manner; don't be afraid).

Poor quality and inaccuracies are rampant on SP (I could list hundreds of examples).

Members should not adopt pages without improving them.

There needs to be some sort of dynamic system for page adoption.

Several of the member’s pages in question could use more work and details. Several of the pages that were adopted received only minimal improvements. The member adopted too many pages (in my opinion) without enough improvement to the the pages.

You probably could make a fantastic page on Avalanche Gulch; probably better than the existing one (especially since you have climbed and will climb the mountain more times). [If I were the maintainer of that page, I would have just transferred the page to you].

Where our opinions differ:

These are some the steps I take when I see a page that has inaccuracies before calling it out publicly in the forum (if there was a written policy, maybe all this wouldn't be needed):

I post comments, additions and corrections to the page and say what is wrong with it. I offer to help with the page. Here is a recent example:

Me:

It's not a bad start, but this page really needs some more information. It's more or less an average page right now, but it can be improved.

It needs some more details on the driving directions and especially the route description. The time needed for the climb should also be mentioned, for example, I believe this one is ~20 miles round trip.

The links could also be made live (SP has instructions on this) as well.

Please take this vote as some positive constructive criticism. The Flat Tops are a great place and you have some great photos on this page.

Response:

That said, I'll try to add some of the improvements you suggest on time required, route descriptions, etc.

<i>I have no idea what making links live means. </i>

Me:

Converting this:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/recr ... ndex.shtml

To this:

<a href=http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/whiteriver/recreation/wilderness/flattops/index.shtml>Click Here for More Information (or whatever other text you want the link to say)</a>

There are directions on how to do this on the FAQ's or there's a way to do it on the page itself.

That way, you can click on the link on your page and go right to the other site.

<i>That said, I'll try to add some of the improvements you suggest on time required, route descriptions, etc. </i>

That would be great. I'll be looking forward to seeing it. The Flat Tops are great.

Sometimes, that doesn't work though. The page above was improved, but not as much as I'd like it to be. Usually they are are improved.

Sometimes the member doesn't make any improvements at all and just makes excuses (since they are inactive, I will mention streeyyr and 1000peaks by name; especially since streeyyr's pages need to be adopted out). Sometimes, the member doesn't do anything at all (such as on the mentioned Shingle Peak page).

In many cases you have to call out page in public and point out the inaccuracies. I am not afraid to do this. Usually, I try to help the member first and give the person a chance to correct the errors pointed out (if you thinks this makes me a bad member and is ruining SP; then we disagree).

There are times that I don't do this though. If material is stolen, cut and pasted from other sources (where the page owner is not the source), made up, etc., I call it out immediately. Same with duplicate pages.

In all other situations, I give the member a chance for improvement first. Even if a page hasn't been improved in a long time, I will post on the page things that need to be fixed and wait (it doesn't have to be for that long) to see if improvements are made before calling them out publicly or trying to get their page transferred to me.

That is where we disagee on the manner. You seem to think that any opinion other than your own in wrong and makes everyone a bad member and you want to attack them personally (including myself).

As far as intentionally distorting anything you tried to say, I have never done that. I accidentally did that on the wiki thread, but once I found that I was in the wrong, I corrected it.

Also, before transferring a bunch of pages to any member, I think the history of the member and his/her current members need to be taken in account. Look to see what their previous submissions are (if they are new and don't have submissions yet, give them a chance). If you do think that their pages are strong enough to improve the pages adopted, don't transfer a bunch of them (not directed to anyone in particular).

Also, as mentioned, sometimes you do have to take a heavy handed approach to taking pages away from members. If a member doesn't improve a page after having inaccuracies pointed out, then a heavy handed approach is warranted.

I also think that a written criteria and the process on page adoptions is needed. It would avoid most of the problems and much of the above would become a much faster process.

I agree 100% with Matt (which I think you agree with some of it as well):

There are ambitious people out there willing and more than able to dramatically improve pages, but their enthusiasm and ability to do so is squashed by the current system which allows for people to "collect" pages. "Owning" a page should be a matter of responsibility to keep it updated rather than a privilege or a trophy to show on your user page. With the new policy in place, I think this will change. If people really understand that it is their responsibility to keep a page updated and not just sit on it, those who have the desire will keep their pages up to date. Those who don't will lose their pages to someone who will.

And I agree with this from Matt:

Previously there was no policy for adopted pages. It would be unfair to retroactively impose such a policy on adopted pages. People should be given fair warning before having to give up pages they've adopted. We can implement the new policy, starting today, and move forward with it in place. But applying it retroactively doesn't seem like a good idea.

The reason I was vocal in this thread isn't to piss you off or to bully you into changing your opinion (although you did admittedly piss me off), or because the person in question is my buddy as you say (I don't really know him), but because think that what you are doing has the potential to drive off existing members. Feel free to attack me for my opinion.

Bob Sihler wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:My suggestion is clear and consistent. If you adopt a page, update it. If you take a year and someone qualified asks for it, don't expect to keep it for very long.

Same as Matt originally suggested.

Not even a year-- that is too long.

My suggestion is clear and consistent, too-- begin the new policy from today. To me, that is a fair line in the sand.

You guys are on the right track!

A quick point to possibly facilitate the dialogue.

Have to bear in mind who the page is about. The person about to attempt the route? Or the page owner? I think the mission should be to provide the best Beta we can. A few egos get squashed in the process, well this is an ego squashing sport. Sorry. You wanna get stroked, take up Yoga.

Josh Lewis wrote:Just like how government has to choose between "freedom and public stability". So if the elves are to government, we have to consider what we value more. Our content? Our members? In a world where we cannot have both... or can we?

My head just exploded.

Scott, out of curiosity, how do you fit so much text into the little white box at the bottom of the page here? I thought my screen was acting up again...

Fletch wrote:My head just exploded.

How do you think I feel after reading this entire thread last night.

Montana Matt wrote: And if it is a new member without many submissions, they should be given a chance.

Or if they are a minority.

mrchad9 wrote:Here is another example. lcarreau adopted two pages today. He said he was going to improve them. Otherwise he had no business adopting them right?

Well if a year goes by and he does not follow through but someone else comes along, I'm sorry but I see no reason to wait two more months for him to get started. If he wanted to update them in 2014 then wait until then to adopt them. Improve pages you take, and it doesn't affect you. Simple.

What an example! You're the man, Chad !!!

Fletch wrote:My head just exploded.

Fletch! You just made me spill my ENTIRE bag of popcorn

John Duffield wrote: Sorry ... You wanna get stroked, take up Yoga.

Bob Sihler wrote:Quite frankly, I would not go to SP for info about Shasta since it can be found all over, but I would go to SP for beta about some obscure peak in Montana or a slot in Utah.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember the last time I climbed a peak and ONLY used SP as my beta source! Granted, I don't bag a lot of peaks (I'm not a real climber...but I do play one on the internet) but still, does anyone really just use one beta source?

And I have to concur with Bob, that this subject would have been best dealt with via a private discussion with the elves instead of dragging it out in the forums.

MarkDidier wrote: but still, does anyone really just use one beta source?

I did use SP only, for multiple trips. If someone makes a complete page, why use other sources?

MarkDidier wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:Quite frankly, I would not go to SP for info about Shasta since it can be found all over, but I would go to SP for beta about some obscure peak in Montana or a slot in Utah.

Yeah, I'm trying to remember the last time I climbed a peak and ONLY used SP as my beta source! Granted, I don't bag a lot of peaks (I'm not a real climber...but I do play one on the internet) but still, does anyone really just use one beta source?

My preferred approach might differ from others here, but I would love to see SP as a place where climbing info would be all that anyone could need.

Having invested countless hours into SP for nothing material, I would like knowing that any page I post is useful as an ONLY source. I certainly do write my pages that way.

No offense, Mark-- you're a good man and I'd still like to climb with you-- but I really do write my pages, and others do as well, so that they will be the only good beta source should such be the case. Except for a good map, any page I make should be all one needs to climb the peak.

Bob Sihler wrote:-- but I really do write my pages, and others do as well, so that they will be the only good beta source should such be the case. Except for a good map, any page I make should be all one needs to climb the peak.

My apologies...In hindsight, I see how my statement could be a little offensive to a number of SPers, considering the time, effort and passion they put into their pages.

We want to have a fun time on the ice, let's just make sure we won't end up breaking it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkErycB4Ahg[/youtube]

Montana Matt wrote:c) If after the 30 to 60 day window, the page hasn't been touched, it is immediately transferred to the member who initiated contact about the page.

With all due respect, I feel that all this will do is encourage collectors to complain about everything, with the hope that something is missed and can be picked up by them. I can think of a few users who would do exactly this- some out of spite, some on a quest for power points. Additionally, what's "effective" for one user is "ineffective" for another. I think some of it is whining, and nothing more. As an aside, it isn't exactly easy to discern who is an "active" user. You can't simply say that you have to be logged in to your account to be an active user. I am on this site seven days a week, most weeks. I am not logged in each time though, and I wouldn't consider myself an "ineffective" user. I'm not going to make changes just for the sake of having a recent edited date.