It has always bothered me that the sidebar on the left side of objects pages places canyons down at the bottom rather than near the top, under the mountain pages. It would make since to me to place all the geologic features together, follows by routes and then all the ancillary, more subjective items like trip reports and albums below that. The Wichita Mountains is a good example of what I am talking about. The Narrows is one of the most significant climbing areas in the range, but it is ignominiously tucked in under the nearly worthless album collection. This just does not make sense.

I do not know if this is something the Elves can change and I doubt it really matters to anyone else besides order freaks like myself. Still, I figured it was worth sending this gripe out into the void...

+1

canyons are under appreciated on this site.

Bubba Suess wrote:It has always bothered me that the sidebar on the left side of objects pages places canyons down at the bottom rather than near the top, under the mountain pages...

Never noticed it until mentioned here, but your point is logical. I'd vote a +1 on this one.

The owners are on a mission to make this site stagnant. Good luck.

Bubba Suess wrote:I do not know if this is something the Elves can change

Unfortunately, it isn't, but it's a good idea and you can add me to the list of people thinking this would be a good change.

Bob Sihler wrote:

Bubba Suess wrote:I do not know if this is something the Elves can change

Unfortunately, it isn't, but it's a good idea and you can add me to the list of people thinking this would be a good change.

Bummer.

mrchad9 wrote:The owners are on a mission to make this site stagnant. Good luck.

Alas. Much as I love Summitpost, I think the obsolescence snowball is heading downhill. I wish there was a way to arrest it. Does anyone know what changed after the launch of V2 that caused the owners to be so hands off?

It's is easy to fix and do some simple things to show SP will grow and develop. The owners are being proactive about stopping that though.

I don't see the site as stagnant, but it seems difficult to navigate. The underlying premises for many aspects of the site are hard to understand. There are 1000s of sites that have message boards, chat rooms, articles, members, etc. Some of them are thriving.

Bubba Suess wrote:
"Alas. Much as I love Summitpost, I think the obsolescence snowball is heading downhill ..."

Don't you mean "proverbial snowball ?"

...

I feel your pain! SP is not as FUN as it used to be ... and, I'm not going to play the BLAME GAME, 'cause it's NOBODY'S FAULT BUT MINE ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_cYrx1TxMY[/youtube]

norco17 wrote:+1

canyons are under appreciated on this site.

I find climbing under appreciated on porn sites

Tonka wrote:

norco17 wrote:+1

canyons are under appreciated on this site.

I find climbing under appreciated on porn sites

Depends on what kind "climbing" you're talkin' about ...

I reckon I ought to bump this one while changes are being made to Summitpost.

Bubba Suess wrote:It has always bothered me that the sidebar on the left side of objects pages places canyons down at the bottom rather than near the top, under the mountain pages. It would make since to me to place all the geologic features together, follows by routes and then all the ancillary, more subjective items like trip reports and albums below that. The Wichita Mountains is a good example of what I am talking about. The Narrows is one of the most significant climbing areas in the range, but it is ignominiously tucked in under the nearly worthless album collection. This just does not make sense.

I do not know if this is something the Elves can change and I doubt it really matters to anyone else besides order freaks like myself. Still, I figured it was worth sending this gripe out into the void...

As someone who does not see canyons very often, I agree with Bubba. The Canyon objects attached ought to be further up the list.

I can only laugh...humor is the best medicine they say...Summitpost has done everything it can to shun technical climbers...Gangolf and company refuse to feature technical climbing objectives on the main page...it is not just his favoritism bs towards other elfs (look at current selection, not one technical climb...never is) .....rather there is not one elf who is a technical rock or ice climber, never has been. Gangolf or his brethren would have no idea what a classic climbing (no I mean actual climbing) addition would be to SP in any regard.

Folks who climb all the time tend not to spend much time on the internet, thus won't play the photo games...so again, never a good climbing photo gets featured on this site...if a coveted vote garner (someone who trades votes) top ropes somewhere, they might get a climbing photo through the roadside shots, but rarely....even then most current active members would have no clue the difference between top roping at a crag vs climbing an objective. And now.....canyons should appear before routes on "what is new"??? In trying to prove all the climbers who have quit this site wrong, I have hung on....now I am ready to move on as well. The site has nothing interesting to offer currently and will no doubt continue to go the nerd direction since that is who is willing to spend the time discussing any changes, with no objective insight into the varying sports that make up the word climbing. Summitpost does not need to have anything to do with climbing...Mountainproject, rockclimbing and Supertopo already exist. And Mountainproject has made the changes that count. Chris (Supertopo) is heading the right direction as well. That I concede.

Josh Lewis, Matt is impressed with you. If you (or he for that matter) want a paying contract job. I would like my beta copied and developed for google search over to Routepost.com or Gearbeans.com so I can delete it from SP.com. This offer is valid to anyone who is capable. In the end, I will need a programmer and a designer. Since these are paying gigs, I probably need to meet you first, but St. George is not a bad place to visit in the winter. I am, as always, busy climbing and don't really put myself in a position to meet folks to do this kind of work (will be in Jtree most of this week). My email is real easy to find.

Best place to get this done I figure is finding someone familiar with SP and has or can have a working relationship with Matt to make this as smooth as possible for both parties. I am looking to do this with cooperation from you Matt....want to leave in good form regarding our relationship. Always open to work with you, Josh and/or Ryle again someday. The current elf population, causing incredible stagnation to the site, is why I am leaving, not the ownership. Ryle did a great job writing this site up originally and I was really impressed that they did not monetize this thing when everyone else could or would have in the mid 2000's. They have been true to their .org status. I give them that.

Dow Williams wrote:Gangolf and company refuse to feature technical climbing objectives on the main page...it is not just his favoritism bs towards other elfs (look at current selection, not one technical climb...never is) ....

Is this really true? I've voted positively on a few Dow routes when I see them, and I generally look only on the front page (nowadays I rarely vote on anything). But I've usually added the caveat that I'm mainly voting on good presentation, because I'm not an expert in that area.

I would say Scott is a technical climber, and produces good pages, some of which end up on the front page. But as he has noted, if you put up info for obscure places, no matter how good the info is, it will probably get few votes. The Whitney trail will get more views and votes.

Folks from the media have cited Dow's info (probably not giving correct attribution), possibly because he is highly searched on google. As Dow has said, the true measure of success is where your page places on Google, rather than the SP votes.

There is some intersection in what sites cover--- e.g. I go on "true" climbing sites to get the latest info on the snow on Baboquivari, or the condition of the bolts. Even though it's mainly a hike with just 5.6 (really more like 5.2), the newest info still tends to be at climbing sites, because, well, that's what those guys do. (Climbers use the "easy" Babo route for descent, and keep up the best chatter.) Isn't that a reasonable balance? Both SP and climbing sites for different views of climbing? It works for me.

Climbers are often embarrassed to give detailed info for an 8 mile trek that has just one 20' technical pitch; but occasionally they do. There is a good description of the Castle Peaks on one climbing site, corresponding roughly to my page on SP. The difference in emphasis is interesting; I spent a bit of time on telling folks how to avoid making it much of a climb, and how best to navigate the confusing roads. The climbers mention the hardware you might use; that's not my expertise, and the actual climbing page (elsewhere) is a great complement.

A similar divide is seen in the way people describe getting up the summit block on Thunderbolt; some folks talk about lassoing the top and pulling yourself up, while others don rock shoes and do a "real" climb. Bod Burd has a neat page for the former approach.