SummitPost.org

Josh Lewis wrote:If you read the other 20 pages, you would know that that is not going to happen.

Josh, you should finish High School young man before you tell me what I need to do. Mind your business and stay out of mine. Are we clear?

I am finished with High School! I better not have a second more of it! My point was that it's obvious that it would not happen to articles, albums, and trip reports. These are often personal writings/ things that don't need extra information (most of the time).

For crying out LOUD ...

SOMETIMES, I wish I was back in High School ...

The only real issue I have with mountain 'ownership' is that a user is allowed to delete it after dependencies have been established; this action causes summit log entries to vanish and creates broken links on list pages. There should be a policy added that once a peak is either on a list, has a route, or a summit log has been signed (any dependency really), then the owner should not be able to delete the mountain entirely; perhaps deleting his content would be acceptable, but not to the extent that the record for the peak has been deleted. 'delete my page' (or whatever the feature is) could wipe the page and set the peak to an 'up for grabs' status. Perhaps there can be a link users can click on that will show orphaned peaks? Also, if it is possible to adopt a peak, a snapshot should be made at the moment of adoption so that the peak can be restored to something if the new owner decides to be malicious and delete the peak that he/she adopted.

sierramtngoat wrote:The only real issue I have with mountain 'ownership' is that a user is allowed to delete it after dependencies have been established; this action causes summit log entries to vanish and creates broken links on list pages. There should be a policy added that once a peak is either on a list, has a route, or a summit log has been signed (any dependency really), then the owner should not be able to delete the mountain entirely; perhaps deleting his content would be acceptable, but not to the extent that the record for the peak has been deleted. 'delete my page' (or whatever the feature is) could wipe the page and set the peak to an 'up for grabs' status. Perhaps there can be a link users can click on that will show orphaned peaks? Also, if it is possible to adopt a peak, a snapshot should be made at the moment of adoption so that the peak can be restored to something if the new owner decides to be malicious and delete the peak that he/she adopted.

+99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

I've found the direction of this thread depressing for the last 6 pages or so, at least I was out climbing. But I have two comments:

What I was getting at with my "asinine" (thanks mrchad9) comment about it being impossible to change voting behavior was that for years we've complained about the way people vote. None of these complaints change things one bit. We've essentially got a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system, despite numerous essays from individual members describing their nuanced voting patterns. I think the behavior is somehow emergent in the system, possibly because it's hard to tell the relationship between a vote and the page score. Whatever. I hoped this thread wouldn't become another place to chew that old bone.

I agree with sierramtngoats comment and add a +1 to mrchad9's +9 (thanks again mrchad9, and this time I don't mean it sarcastically). Nodes with children should remain at least as stubs, with a comment begging for adoption, etc. I hope this idea can make it into a submission to Matt, because it does strengthen the case for would-be contributors that their objects will remain in the context they placed them and not unattached or otherwise orphaned.

There has been so much discussed and in reading these posts, I think that in reality you will have to institute the changes Bob that you feel are needed (and the rest of you) but once the changes are completed....... unexpected issues will pop up and some tweaking will have to be done to iron it all out. I think there is just too much to expect to get this done and and have it all fit nicely.

mvs wrote:What I was getting at with my "asinine" (thanks mrchad9) comment about it being impossible to change voting behavior was that for years we've complained about the way people vote. None of these complaints change things one bit. We've essentially got a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system, despite numerous essays from individual members describing their nuanced voting patterns. I think the behavior is somehow emergent in the system, possibly because it's hard to tell the relationship between a vote and the page score. Whatever.

Right, nothing about the current voting process is going to change until the system is changed. I was simply responding to you saying it was impossible to address. It is actually very easy to address, Matt just has to decide to do it. It'd be more accurate to say it is impossible for you or me to address, but it is addressable.

Yes, the behavior is emergent in the system, but not because it's hard to tell the relationship between a vote and page score. It's easy... a 10 makes it go up and 1-9 make it go down. That's a thumbs up/thumbs down system as you said. Change it so that different scores can have varying positive effects, and you will see a lot more non-10s. Addressable.

And IF Matt were to work on it, why on earth would you propose he spend time and effort making a thumbs up/down system almost identical to what we already have? That's what you proposed. I'd suggest if we did clear the hurdle of Matt working on it, that he should make it BETTER.

mvs wrote:I hoped this thread wouldn't become another place to chew that old bone.

Well... you were the one who brought it up!

mrchad9 wrote:

mvs wrote:I hoped this thread wouldn't become another place to chew that old bone.

Well... you were the one who brought it up!

Fair enough. I had disagreements with a LOT of people on this thread. But we all used language that didn't put anybody else down. Overall I'd say it demonstrated that we can come together and discuss a complex topic despite widely divergent views. Your use of the word "asinine" injected a note of ugliness that rankled me. Now I'm over it.

A friend thought I was going away from the site, but I'm not. To prove it I just made a route page.

And yes I want a cookie. Chocolate chip because it's hard to find over here.

Quick add on: It's probably been covered in this thread somewhere and I cannot quickly find a quote to reference, but I would find the following collaboration feature very beneficial:

Quick-take conditions reports section for mountains (general) and routes (specific) where users could provide a quick 'n dirty (Ok, maybe I shouldn't go there with this audience...) account of conditions encountered on a mountain/route.

Has the seasonable gate closure occurred?
How far up the Forest Service road can my vehicle go? Front-wheel drive sedan? Standard 4x4? Modified 4x4?
How bad was the post-holing on the approach?
Is the summit ridge icy?

Etc.

How much structure would be built around this eventually, I don't know. For the time-being, I think a running "ticker tape" style update stating the date and and open-ended / verbatim box for conditions input (with some guidance) would suffice.

Cheers!
Sarah

Sarah what you describe would be really great. I have to use other sites to glean current conditions. I've tried creating a forum thread on SP for that, but there just isn't enough activity in my section of the woods. However 2-3 local sites get a dozen reports a day of current conditions.

We have an addition/corrects section currently which I think is all we need, but moving that to with the page would draw more attention to it, and I'd be fine with that.

As for pages owned by inactive members, why not define what "inactive" is, and once that is met his pages go up for graps?

Wiki is a bad idea, as we risk to many changes and potential bad info.

That is my 2 cents.

vanman798 wrote:Wiki is a bad idea, as we risk to many changes and potential bad info.

What would you think about it if the owner had to approve the change? It'd be easy for them to kick the change out, and avoid bad info.

The Global PM has been deleted, and the most popular ideas have been summarized and submitted to Matt.

It does seem like some of the suggested changes made be me and others, are just to deal with people who won't read or add to the "additions and corrections section" or are too lazy to edit their pages to include the changes. Let's go ride bikes!