SummitPost.org

Phenom wrote:I appreciate those really good contributions a lot of folks have put their time into for sure.

Which brings up an excellent point ... HOW do you define a "really" good contribution ? Is it based on quality, content, or both ???

If we are not using our power to vote, how will quality and content rise to the surface ? These are all questions we should be asking ourselves ....

For me, a good contribution is one that has all the information there so that I can print the page and go, using that page as my sole source of information, other than a good map, if I want to. Also, the author has put some effort into posting and displaying some scenic and/or beta photos that enhance the peak's attractiveness and capture my interest in it. Related, the Overview is well written, telling me why this peak is worthy of a page and worthy of being climbed.

Also, I prefer pages that stick with the format SP provides. I know some people put a lot of work into their pages making tables and borders and such, and those pages look great, but I sometimes wonder if newer members see those kinds of pages and feel intimidated by the amount of effort and time put in. If they get the sense that such pages are the expected standard on SP, they may not want to contribute. I know that has been the case on a couple of occasions, but I have no idea how widespread it is; it may not be widespread at all, but there's no good way to tell. I still vote on those pages, but I don't not vote on others based on their not meeting those standards.

(Note-- I am guilty of making tables sometimes so I can display up to four pictures side-by-side, but I am trying to do that less and don't do all the borders, colors, etc. that make a page look pretty fancy.)

As far as people voting on crap goes, and I know it's been talked about recently in another thread, that's long been a problem here. I could point to two members, both from the same country, though that's probably just a coincidence, who regularly vote 10/10 on empty pages and awful pages. And when I say empty, that's what I mean-- not a page under construction but rather a page with nothing but a title and "Add...here" in all the fields. It used to bewilder me, but I've come to the conclusion that they are seeking friends who will in turn vote on their own submissions.

And just because the owners and moderators never put their feet down on off-topic photos, and there are people who post slews of them, it doesn't mean you have to post them or have to vote on them. Some of the people who complain the loudest about the crap are the same people who post a lot of crap themselves, in the forums or in site content, or who routinely vote 10/10 on it. Maybe we need an Irony 101 course for some members.

Most of us, myself included, are guilty of posting at least some off-topic crap. About five years ago, when the Animal Close-ups album was made, the creator was happy with non-mountain animal shots, so I posted a bunch of shots of birds and alligators from the Everglades. Later, I deleted all of that crap and a lot of other junk (except the osprey picture I sometimes use as a profile shot, since I have seen numerous ones in the mountains and, after all, I use it as a profile shot, where I think off-topic photos are fine), and when I occasionally run across other older crap of mine, I delete that, too. Earlier this summer, I deleted two mountain pages I never should have posted.

As always, you can avoid most of the crap by not sifting through the new pictures and not looking at albums. If you want to encourage members submitting quality and useful photos, peruse the new mountains, routes, areas, canyons, and trip reports and do your voting there. That content is the heart and the purpose of the site.

We all know the voting system is whacked. Obviously, the longer you've been here, the more points you should get for your contributions.

borutek wrote:

lcarreau wrote:HOW do you define a "really" good contribution ? Is it based on quality, content, or both ???

Just do your best

Borut ..... I ALWAYS do my best, but eventually END UP looking like this guy .......

lcarreau wrote:

Phenom wrote:I appreciate those really good contributions a lot of folks have put their time into for sure.

Which brings up an excellent point ... HOW do you define a "really" good contribution ? Is it based on quality, content, or both ???

It's the quality of the content.

For mountain/rock/route pages:
Was it useful? Did it really help you to finish the mountain/route, or did it remove an ambiguity you found in other guides/maps?

I was just checking some routes on summitpost, for an upcoming trip. The descriptions were vague, and the geographic directions were totally incorrect (e.g. said "north" when the author meant "west"). That is not useful information; but the author did have pretty pictures. I ended up using a TR from Peakbagger.com (the TR was verified 2x by other climbers). I have nothing against people giving limited information, so as not to spoil the fun of route-finding; but the given information should at least be correct.

I will rate a words-only description, which is accurate, over an incorrect description full of pretty pictures.

MoapaPk wrote:I was just checking some routes on summitpost, for an upcoming trip. The descriptions were vague, and the geographic directions were totally incorrect (e.g. said "north" when the author meant "west"). That is not useful information; but the author did have pretty pictures. I ended up using a TR from Peakbagger.com (the TR was verified 2x by other climbers). I have nothing against people giving limited information, so as not to spoil the fun of route-finding; but the given information should at least be correct.

If you find bad information and the page owner is inactive, you can ask the elves to correct the information. If the page owner is active, obviously it would be better to contact that person first.

And should anyone find an error in one of my pages, I hope to be alerted so as to correct a mistake.

Some mistakes are honest ones. Recently, I found that I had written to turn one direction when I knew (and meant to write) to turn the other way. Fortunately, I saw and corrected it quickly, but people don't always catch those things even when they self-edit.

I had the same issue Bob did with my Glacier Peak page. Thankfully someone corrected me in an email which I then had to inspect my pages for this one turn into the city of Arlington. Now my pages should be pretty much error free.

I have made mistakes and corrected them when I was notified; it's easy to make mistakes when trying to provide detail. In part, that's why I add gps waypoints; I can pull them from a track without any chance for human degradation of the correct values.

When I get an actual track for the routes where I (recently) found the mistake, I will post the map on that route, along with a polite note of correction. And I will try to delete this dialogue.

Someone... let's call them PoapaMk for the time being to keep it anonymous... PM'd me to correct one of my pages a few months ago. I had said east, instead of west, by mistake in the driving directions. Poor editing on my part. But the page did have lots of pretty pictures.

Sorry PoapaMk!

Eye candy is very important in my book.
If a good mountain does not have any eye candy, even if the text is good, I usually refuse to vote on it.

mrchad9 wrote:Someone... let's call them PoapaMk for the time being to keep it anonymous... PM'd me to correct one of my pages a few months ago. I had said east, instead of west, by mistake in the driving directions. Poor editing on my part. But the page did have lots of pretty pictures.

Sorry PoapaMk!

PoapaMk PM'd me and said your page was great -- the error was obvious, because it was inconsistent with the rest of the directions. The detail for the rest was spot on, making the error obvious. That is, according to PoapaMk.

The problem I have, is when the directions are so brief and vague, that it isn't really easy to tell if "west" or "north" is correct, and there are no maps or route photos. So you look at the topo maps, figure out where the person really wanted to go, then find 2 other reports for trips that started at the same place, but went "west." It's a neat exercise in forensics, but not a really good use of time.

One doesn't need to have GPS-type waypoints; just a reference to a map (even the USGS quad name will do), some bearings, and descriptions like "cut north of the point labeled 2050m..." are plenty good enough.

Josh Lewis wrote:Eye candy is very important in my book.

Which book are you reading there, Josh ?

MoapaPk wrote:It's the quality of the content.

I would think there should be some middle ground. Nobody's perfect, so people are going to make some mistakes. I'm casting my vote for "middle ground."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiW_NI9stp8[/youtube]

Josh Lewis wrote:Eye candy is very important in my book.
If a good mountain does not have any eye candy, even if the text is good, I usually refuse to vote on it.

Depends on the type of page. If it is a route page, and there are lots of route pages as children of a single parent mountain page, the route pages should give correct descriptions, and the mountain page can have the eye candy. Albums are usually just eye candy.

I guess you have to ask what the real purpose of summitpost should be. Years ago, SP was a primarily place to find information that would help one climb summits. The size of photos and maps was severely limited, and people had to get creative -- perhaps uploading maps in sections, or simply giving the quad name and providing details relative to that map.

Years ago, there was a person who provided a nice web page, with nice photos, and nice maps with drawn, color-coded tracks. The problem was that the person had not actually climbed the mountain, and had drawn in hypothetical tracks. One of the tracks, described as class 2, went over 300' of technical cliffs. In this case, the prettiness of the page, and all the detail, was a smokescreen. But it was an obscure peak, and few people could call the author on the errors. Yet the page was pretty, and got the requisite 10/10 votes. Now, the person did not intend to be malicious-- the author was just new to the game, and naive; the author thought that if you could draw a trail on a map, by golly, you should be able to follow it. But since a loop was shown, a person could have chosen to descend the "class 2" route at the end of the day, and been quite surprised.

IMHO, accurate directions are far more important than pretty pictures, unless the pretty pictures are used to illustrate a route.

MoapaPk wrote:IMHO, accurate directions are far more important than pretty pictures, unless the pretty pictures are used to illustrate a route.

That is definitely true. Exactly why I refuse to give a good vote on mountain pages with tons of pictures and hardly any text. (I'm a picky voter). But when it comes to trip reports, I'm a bit easier going.

The reason I like some nice eye candy on the page is because I admit that I'm a visual learner. "Take a left here, right there, third right at the far off left..." I sometimes can get confused by that kind of stuff. I know, sounds silly. Fortunately my good mountaineering skills make up for this problem which I figure it out on my own on the climb.

lcarreau wrote:Which book are you reading there, Josh ?

Last book that I went all the way though was this one:

And yes, it was a picture book. I used to read books, but I guess the internet made me lazy. But at least I read other things.

Well, there's little to no snow here in Arizona, so gotta make due with what we've got.

I can't afford to travel like some (other) members can, but sometimes "THINKING" is the best way to travel ..

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