mrchad9 wrote:Burchey wrote:Do you think the relative difficulty of creating Trip Reports/Pages/etc with the current software discourages users from adding? It's fairly time consuming - images especially
The difficulty of using the current software is an obstacle for many users... several have commented on it in the past.
People have commented on it, but I've never really seen where they're coming from. Once you create a few pages, it seems pretty easy to me. I'm not saying it can't be better, but my only real issue is the slowness that often goes with uploading photos.
For me the greater factor is the amount of time and energy it takes to create the writeup and content for the page. I have become more reluctant to put as much effort into low rewarding endeavors (such as creating peak pages for seldom climbed locations- I am more interested in those that have more public interest).
I understand where you're coming from and have sometimes found myself thinking the same regarding my own pages, but I hope you'll reconsider. In my opinion, SP's greatest value is as a source of beta for lesser-known peaks. No offense to Bubba, who has done a beautiful job with the Shasta page, but if I google "Shasta climbing" or "Climbing Shasta" or "Mount Shasta climbing routes," the SP page is one of several sources that comes up (though it was second or third for each of those when I checked). If I google some of the mountains you have posted, I am likely to get only your page or at least very few options, thus making that page more valuable in a relative sense.
Just imagine all the other beta sources if you google Mount Whitney!
My page for Dollar Mountain in Wyoming, for example, seems to be the only source of useful beta for the peak on the Internet. Its only "competition" is this page--
http://peakery.com/dollar-mountain-wyoming/-- which has the wrong elevation by several hundred feet and no beta that would help someone wanting to climb the peak.