SummitPost.org

Going wiki is the worst idea I've ever seen proposed for summitpost. If it does go that way, it's a sure bet that many will delete their pages and leave for good.

A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages. It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

Scott wrote:It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

Amen to that.

I do think owners have a responsibility to maintain their pages - or lose them. There are quite a few pages that were really good when first posted, but some haven't been updated in over 5 years and now have broken links and/or outdated information. I realize that a lot of work went into the initial edition of the page. But really, 5 years is way too long not to make any updates. If you're not going to maintain your pages, then you shouldn't create them in the first place.

A wiki style would discourage a lot of people from making pages, and some pages really do not need to be updated all that often. That being said when a page does not have the information that I need I first look in the additions and corrections section. If the information is not their a PM to the author often gets the information.

As far as abandoned pages if a person asks the elves to take over the page then the original author should have six months to revamp the page if necesary (necesity being at the discretion of the elves) especially for a low voted page or a popular page that needs lots of upkeep.

The idea of the author opening up certain sections to a wiki style edit is also helpful, but I think most of this is not really needed because most things can be handled in the current additions and corrections

A route is a route it does not matter whether it is class 1 or 5.17dA6Wi7Ai8M9 VII it is still a route. That being said I see no problem separtaing approaches/hikes from technical climbs. But if that is done it may also be wise to separate ice and mixed out at the same time(we already have a separte categorie for canyons which I don't think is entirely neccesary) and add a search feature similar to mountain projects.

Full Wiki: NO!

I've been a major peak page owner for almost 10 years....including three Rockie's state high points and the Grand Teton. As a page owner, I welcome input and changes, and strive to make the pages the most up-to-date resources that this site can offer. If these pages are not up to standard, then I want to know about it and will make immediate improvements or changes if necessary. The point is: I'm on this site every day to make sure that happens. If a page owner is slack and not doing their job, then something needs to be done. In the old days, we would band together, hijack the page, then give the page to a responsible owner. But now the site has grown and seems like something else needs to be done to fix the problem of out-of-date pages/owners.

No matter what procedure is decided, members need to be active and be responsible page owners. If they are not, then give their pages to someone who will keep the page up to the standard that the peak deserves.

Scott wrote:Going wiki is the worst idea I've ever seen proposed for summitpost. If it does go that way, it's a sure bet that many will delete their pages and leave for good.

A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages. It would also help if so many people would quit voting 10/10 on pages that have barely a few sentences and hardly no useful information.

People deleting their pages would indeed suck. There are a TON of resources available. For that point, Admin "locking" pages that are well received and important isn't a bad idea, either (making it so they wouldn't be deleted, but maybe opened up to someone who wants to adopt the page, so as to not lose pages.)

Page abandonment/ignoring is a problem, however most people I have worked with add/fix/update/change things, or don't respond at all. Making "abandoned" pages easier to adopt (1 year of ignoring?) might help.

I do like the idea of an "open" box that other people can add info/update, as people do on MountainProject. Then owners can update it,but if it gets ignored for X-criterion, you can adopt it if you want to (or something).

Scott wrote:A much better solution would be to adopt out the poor quality or abandoned pages.

I think this is the major issue on summitpost.

I think a more visible display of additions, corrections, and comments is reasonable.

I think wiki-style editing is a bad idea.

In my opinion, the problem isn't SummitPost. The problem is with some users.

First, many people do not like sharing knowledge of peaks that can be added to pages. In addition, many people who know of updated or better information do not even place "Comments", or "Additions & Corrections", or even contact many page owners. Hence, many pages get neglected.

Second, many page owners/creators either do not log-in regularly, or do not reply to or acknowledge updated information, or both.
------------

Giving basically anyone authority to make page updates and edits sets up potential problems such as page owners feeling attacked, page editors feeling like they can change whatever they want, and pages getting changes that really do not need them.

I would hate for SummitPost pages to lose their individual essences that occurs from different page owners creating such pages. I also would really hate for people to start whipping-out new Mountain/Rock pages with little/no information, and especially if those page owners have not even attempted the peaks in question, just expecting other people to "fill in the blanks". That would mark a new arena for potential pointbagging over providing resourceful information, something that runs rampant already with some SP members. That would be stupid, and then SummitPost would lose a lot of its luster.

I'm not suggesting there is not a viable solution to the concerns mentioned earlier, but the proposals mentioned need some sort of serious tweaking. I do not have the answers for that, but I do know that wiki is a terrible idea.

I think that an open section at the bottom of each page with access from anyone would improve the pages. This would be a great place to note changes, such as the recent experience that I had when I got to an access road and found it closed for logging with no mention of that on the mountain's page.

RobSC wrote:I think that an open section at the bottom of each page with access from anyone would improve the pages. This would be a great place to note changes, such as the recent experience that I had when I got to an access road and found it closed for logging with no mention of that on the mountain's page.

I think that is a proposal possibly worth exploring, but only with the added caveat that page owners/administrators can remove comments from the open section at will.

For almost ten years I have been writing pages on SP! I personal think that making summitpost a wiki site would do total harm to summitpost. I can't imagine myself spending 5 hours a day check all my pages wondering if a troll edited my information and potentially destroyed my page. I had that happen to a trip report on another site where a user went into my TR added his own picture and totally changed the wording of the trip report. That was quiet upseting to say the least!!!!

There are so many ways to improve a page right now. The first thing is to write a PM to the user about either a correction or about adopting or being administrator of the page! If that does not work then write an addition/correction to the page. Finally if the user is inactive and you want the page ask the elves. Usually by then the page will be updated!

Leave SP the way it is. If you are a user and you want to make a page better that is already on SP, use your PM's, addition and corrections, and voting rights to the page. If that doesn't work than outright send a PM to the elves to adopt the page in full. That is my take on the issue.

I think any changes to make the process easier and allow more input on pages from more people is a must. Doing nothing in not an option. The current process to create pages is very cumbersome right now and needs to change.

on the road right now, so I'll make this short.

I would personally be very opposed to a Wiki.

The suggested changes section (with owner approval) might work, but instead of going that far, why not just switch the Additions/Corrections with the Comments section as the one visible at the bottom of the page?

Maybe a "Pages for Adoption" section to specially mark out those pages that have not been updated in years, (and hasn't seen their owners log in in years)...mind you, some of them, though not quite extensive and often lacking that personal/signature touch, do have pertinent and useful information...often enough for someone to gain the summit...but I definitely think the Adirondack pages all could use a lot of improvement. I remember hiking several years ago with someone from Quebec (via 14ers.com); in discussing websites he had dismissed SP as being highly inaccurate and of poor quality, and, since this person lives very close to the ADK's, I wonder if that area is dragging down SP for all who hike in that area.

Finally, I know that if I want more info, particually updated, I'll usually look to the Climber's Log as well. Maybe that could be more visible on a page, or particularly the more updated entries? The only setback to that would be, along with comments, beta below, additions corrections visible, etc, is that all this could serve to clutter up and slow down many pages.

Being more of a scrambler/hiker than a technical climber, I personally have nothing against the current format of routes, but would not be against two separate categories. (I think the website is easy enough to navigate where whether you're looking for a technical route or not, you'd be able to find it fairly easily; a rocker climber would not search Mt. Bross for a technical route, and a hiker would not search Independence Monument for a class 3 scramble). One thing to think about though...going down that route might result in a lot of bickering over whether a route should be technical or not, whether it requires ropes or not, etc.

As a frequent contributor who actually tried to keep pages updated I would support the vision casted by Bob Sihler.

Hi there!

I think that Wiki system of editing the pages would be very disrespectful toward people who spent hours and hours of their time to create some of (to be honest) very impressive pages, like the Dinaric Alps one or Julian Alps for example.

But I'm also for the option of adding an open section at the bottom of the pages, which are in a certain way incomplete or they do not have enough info. I think this would be a good starting point at seeing what kind of difference this would make, i.e. would it be utilised or abused. I do not have many pages of my own, but I would definitely need some help (and additional info) on some of them, so I would take new useful information and incorporate it into the page.

Thanks tons for putting this together Bob!

I also created a table in the article page that brings together the ideas from all the comments I got there. If you like the format, maybe we could combine that table with the distilled wisdom from comments here into a kind of "feature idea" table. Check it out here and let me know your thoughts.

I'm also trying out a "mission statement" for the feature idea:

As a technical climber, I deal in lots of small but important details. I don't have time to create full pages, and am more interested in up to date valid information. If I can provide small chunks of it here and there I would find the site more useful.

Let's put that out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up (rather, lets run it up the flagpole and see who salutes it. . Sorry, I just watched "12 Angry Men" last night and can't stop quoting the film ).