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):
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?
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.