SummitPost.org

I think I have the largest drop of all users: lost more than 800 (more 50% of my points), which suddenly kicked me miles away from the rankings first page
Well, for sure this is due to my large quantity of photos... Haven't posted new stuff since too long !

visentin wrote:I think I have the largest drop of all users: lost more than 800 (more 50% of my points), which suddenly kicked me miles away from the rankings first page
Well, for sure this is due to my large quantity of photos... Haven't posted new stuff since too long !

Sorry about that visentin, but that seemed to be the near consensus on pics. Pics with a high score give you something, but those with 1-2 votes do essentially nothing now. I hope folks continue to add them though to enhance the site and better mountain pages.

Ok if a member with 10000 images isn't too upset about this change then I expect no one else has any issue right???

Montana Matt wrote:

Redwic wrote:Thanks, Mr. Chad... You seem to be the only one responding to questions today. lol

Dude! A man's gotta sleep sometime! I'm just getting back online now and will be addressing some of the feedback we're getting.

I know... That's why I put my "lol" (i.e. I was not being serious)...

You guys (Matt, Josh, Chad, etc.) all did a great job.
There might be a few kinks during the transition period, but in the long run this is a good thing for the website.

excellent upgrade!

I just checked back in yesterday and saw all the upgrades you elves have worked hard to put in place. Thank you. I was a bit surprised to see that my power rating had dropped 800 points but now I understand why and I'm fine with it. Kudos for trying to improve not only the look but the way things work.

Overall I like it. The new server seems to be quick, the front page is improved, the scoring system better reflects reality.

The "worst" problem I've found so far is that (I think) the default font is now smaller, so some of my trip reports now have lots of white space around images that previoulsy floated left or right amid the text. Centered photos also behave a tiny bit differently now - they don't force a full break in the layout.

Finally, I perfected it! A single DIV that displays an image which can be seen here: (left and right too)
http://www.summitpost.org/personal-test ... hes/835355

Now keep in mind this page will not display so well on internet explorer because it does not know how to work well with the display:table method. But if this is implemented properly, it will not have any need for the display property.

Anyways, the advantage to this is reduced code needed and hopefully the different image alignments can "act" the same in the sense of them not being so different. At the very least this would make manual inserting of images easy (for example when placing in a large panorama). I'm hoping this method fixes a few issues with more radical formatting.

Can we make the section titles a bit less intruding? If you have long sections with many pictures it looks ok but if you look at the back end of pages (Red Tape / Weather / Camping) you'll see blue bar after blue bar, which is oppressive.

Example (not a good page for sure)

http://www.summitpost.org/trettachspitze/151166

Gangolf Haub wrote:Example (not a good page for sure)

http://www.summitpost.org/trettachspitze/151166

They have to make good pages! Looks much better with small pic or two in each section.

Montana Matt wrote:

nartreb wrote:Centered photos also behave a tiny bit differently now - they don't force a full break in the layout.

Can you give an example of that?

Look at the last photo in this TR: http://www.summitpost.org/a-lion-head-fox-tale/188250 The centered Medium photo captioned "rime" . The top of the photo is higher than the bottoms of the small photos in either margin ("skiers" and "above the ravine") when viewed at a window width around 1500 pixels. I don't think that was the case before, though my mind may be playing tricks on me.

Text is still a full break (see the other bigger centered photo, "a fox this high up"? ) But I think the floating of the left and right images has changed in a way that allows them to share a horizontal band with the centered image, I don't think that was the case before. If it is a change, it's an improvement; I shouldn't have listed it in the same paragraph as the "worst problem".

(BTW I'm using Chrome 24 on a Windows laptop at the moment, haven't tried other platforms or browsers yet.)

I noticed this morning that most people had (generally slight) score increases, overnight.

I had some time to think about the new changes, overnight, and I have the following observations and concerns.

PROs:
-> I like the new "style" of the website. Much slicker design! Much improved!

-> I like the new logo... especially with the "dot" of the "i" being a sun behind a mountain slope. Very creative!

-> I really like that the "weight" of a vote has changed. 1-5 to decrease, 6-10 to increase. That makes sense to me.

-> I agree that SP members should get higher "Power" points for contributions rather than photos. In theory, that should help encourage people to make contributions rather than focusing on "more points" through photo submissions. This website should be about the contributions, first and foremost.

-> I like the "Photo of the Moment" idea. However, I do hope it is purely random and not based solely on votes/score, or else that would be a detriment to those who have not yet gotten votes and who might not get many/any (if general users focus primarily on that feature for choosing photos to vote for).
------------

CONs:
-> Although I am a big fan of balancing out vote scoring, I am not a fan of the philosophy that more votes equals a such an imbalanced score adjustment for a contribution. With the current voting scheme, a page contribution now has a ridiculously minor score/rating when it gets only a few votes, even if it is a very good page. In essence, a contributor can now get "rewarded" if he/she makes a lame or semi-decent page with many 6-10 votes, but a person who makes an awesome page with only a handful of votes gets kind of screwed over. So a person has to hope that he/she gets a lot of page votes, and that can purely be luck of timing, SP friends, or personnel. That seems unfair, and will discourage some people from posting new contributions. It also might change the perception of SP as an inclusive club to an exclusive club. If you do not believe me, then I recommend checking out some of the page scores on the various SP categories; some prominent pages will definitely stand out as having "bad" scores when they certainly are not bad contributions.

-> The flip side of my second statement in the "PROs" section above is that despite me agreeing with the concept of contributions over photo submissions, it appears that concept is completely based upon the number of votes given to contributions rather than the number of (hopefully) quality contributions to SP. So a person might make a lot of great new contributions, but if he/she does not get many votes, then the "Power" (which is a corny term) or prominence of that person on the website is held back. That ties in with my previous concern, too.

-> One of the things that I have always liked about SP is the personal touch each contributor brings to his/her pages. I have definite concerns that the recent changes, especially the seeming necessity to get many vote scores for contributions, will take away some of that individuality and creativity. Some people are great writers but not great photo-takers. Some people are great photo-takers but not great writers. Some people are great with coding, while others are not or do not want to be. I personally do not expect perfection from SP members; I expect usable information that will help others in the future. I cannot speak for everyone, but I refuse to punish any users who might not have the greatest grammar, photos, or page coding, as long as the information is readable, accurate, and usable to the masses. That is what is most important to me, personally. No knowledge is useless. I am concerned that the necessity for a contribution to get a lot of votes to "appear" semi-decent will push some people away from making contributions. I will stand up for non-everyday users and try to support them, even if nobody else does.
------------

I hope those reading this post take it as true feedback and constructive criticism. SP needs more of that, to make it a better website. Again, I applaud those who helped make the current changes in an attempt to improve the website. I think the current changes are a great start, but should not be the finished product. That's my two cents.

PS I think you're right that the extra white space I'm seeing is a side effect of forcing full breaks at chapter headings.

Here's an example: http://www.summitpost.org/mount-cabot/154513 The snake photo previously intruded into Getting There section, but now it looks forlorn. I think I'll move it explicitly into that section. I have a bunch of cases like that, I'm sure. Well worth it in exchange for less confusing layout rules.

Montana Matt wrote:The layout rules are far less confusing. Photos will always appear in the section in which they're placed. No more having to worry about them floating down into the next section and being out of place.

I agree with that. *Thumbs Up*

Thank you for the prompt reply, Matt. Much appreciated.

I guess my concern is more along the lines of SP member favoritism over the quality of an actual contribution.
But perhaps that cannot be eliminated, no matter what the change is.

I agree with you that five votes is not a lot of votes. I also agree with you that a 75% score is not necessarily a bad score.
I guess it would probably help to know more about what the voting scheme actually is.

Right now, most of us (myself included) are completely in the dark.
I know I have apprehensions about making new contributions until the new changes are better-explained.

Montana Matt wrote:

Redwic wrote:I have definite concerns that the recent changes, especially the vote scores, will take away some of that individuality and creativity.

Why would you come to that conclusion?

Let me put it into a sample scenario:
PERSON A makes a Mountain page. The mountain might not have an eye-catching name or be in a familiar region, but PERSON A spends many hours to make certain the page is full of useful information, including routes, driving directions gear, etc.

PERSON B makes a Mountain page, too. The mountain has an eye-catching name or is in a familiar region, but PERSON B spends a little time making the page with only basic information provided.

PERSON A's page gets little attention despite being a thorough and helpful page, and only musters two votes.
PERSON B's page gets more attention despite being a page with less usable content but with a lot of eye-catching photos, and musters 15 votes.
------------

My concern is that the website is too point-driven... and with the revised voting-weight, perhaps now more than ever.

I do not know if or how it can be possible, but it seems like the way to "improve" the contributions on SummitPost are by rewarding contributions that have certain criteria reached. When a page contribution is being created, there are certain categories already in place as a starting point. Is there an overview? Are driving directions given? Is there any red tape? Stuff like that. Then the initial page-score is determined by the criteria/sections being checked off, rather than being completely vote-driven. By doing that, you can create a "standard" for SP while maintaining creativity and a sense of fairness (at least initially). And then the votes will build up the contribution scores from that point, based upon (in theory) the quality of the criteria reached and other pertinent information provided.
(Of course, this could only apply to pages for Areas, Mountains, and/or Routes, not pages for Images, Lists, or Articles.)

Again, I am just putting ideas to the masses for discussion. There is no perfect way of doing things.
There is no question you guys have improved the website.