I will definitely agree with Redwic on a few points:
1. Obscure pages that are well done do not get the appreciation they deserve. I've seen Redwic post some good pages that I felt went "unnoticed". One of my best mountain pages I've ever posted (perhaps my absolute best) is actually one of my lowest rated. This is because the mountain is not very well known, despite the fact that it is a awesome climb pumped with tons of details. I inherited the page which means it will never show up on what's new (back in the day when it did, the page was not so good). So I feel for Redwic on this one
2. There is a atmosphere of votes equaling quality. The truth is that that is not true. Need proof? I've seen an airplane photo with no mountains in the background whats so ever get more votes than some truly amazing photos. I have many examples but the point is that votes do bring up a lot of quality content, but they do not necessarily speak out how good that content actually is. So here's the wording I personally don't like "Best Mountains & Rocks". I would have called it "Best Rated Mountains & Rocks" which makes it much more accurate. Not a big deal, but it does create an atmosphere of what the "best stuff" is. Kinda like the 7 summits being the best pages on the site... right?
(Fletch did honestly impress me with the Denali page upgrade)
3. I really enjoyed Redwic's point about having a standard. We already have one. But in the past I've had a case where the admins seemed annoyed by my postings because they were afraid I'd raise the standards. This is good in content, but bad in the sense that it scares off new posters. The way I see it, most of the obvious mountains in the world are taken. So if your going to put up a page on something, let it be a good one. I can't tell you how many times I've not been able to contribute good information because the page was taken with only fair quality.