Page 3 of 3

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:49 am
by Bob Sihler
Montana Matt wrote:Seems to me that most people would upload an image while creating a page. My guess as to the reason that most older SP members do not do this is because it wasn't previously possible.


A lot of us upload most images before page creation because we don't like seeing incomplete/under construction pages. This has long been a sore spot among a lot of contributing members. So we upload images beforehand and write text beforehand so that we can then work on layout and present a complete page at the moment of submission.

Edit: and the new "Under Construction" option doesn't help this because those pages still appear on the main What's New page. If they were entirely invisible to all but the page owner and then received a creation date that was the same as the one when the writer finally finished the page, that would be a great addition to the site and would provide more of an incentive for me (and perhaps several others) to make the full switch to the new editor and leave behind the old practice of copying and pasting from our custom objects and other workshop pages.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 1:00 am
by Josh Lewis
I will echo what Bob said. It's not that my captions of my photos are bad, but are usually too lengthy to go into a page.

Matt Lemke wrote:Having two pop-ups open completely removes the "default" problem of having either photo insert method over the other.


While that seems like a neat idea, two pop ups seems like overkill. It could work in theory, but Matt's idea of having two separate buttons would be better for everyone.

Bob Sihler hit it right on the money. Even if your not using the bulk uploader, I don't like posting incomplete pages. If you could only upload images through the new editor, you'd see my pages be incomplete. This is because I upload my photos over time rather than all at once.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 6:09 am
by Josh Lewis
Another reason the photo caption deal can be a hassle is because sometimes I've tried to replace the caption only to replace the image. :x Then I use the built in undo button. Nothing happens. Right click undo, nothing happens. There goes the photo I looked around for and resized. :? Now this has rarely happened to me, but it just did a moment ago. Possibly human error. But if another button as Matt suggested was added for inserting images, this problem would come up. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but as I go I'm realizing it's more important than I originally believed it to be.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:35 pm
by rgg
So far, it appears that quite a few people don't like the automatic insertion of captions when inserting images - well, I disagree, I do like it.

Although I tend to edit the caption afterwards (like Bob's, some of my captions are too big), it would be more work if the caption would start off empty and I would have to add something. However, this is just my own way of doing things, and if others don't like automatic insertion of captions, I wouldn't mind if this would change.

However, much more important is that, without automatic insertion, I believe that we would get to see lots of pages with images that have no captions at all. And that I would consider a bad development!

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:07 pm
by Josh Lewis
Again, either a chechbox would solve this that puts in the caption (have it checked by default). Was this an issue before the new editor? Is there still interest in making a separate image button?

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 6:27 pm
by Josh Lewis
Why not have it insert the image title instead? I think that would be a lot more accurate and to the point.

Regarding "caption hassle" I take it your talking about blank captions are hard to get back in them? a blank <p></p> I think would fix that (creating a blank space below the image). And as soon as one placed in text it would go in the p tags.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 5:34 pm
by gimpilator
I request that caves be added as an option for page creations. If we can support canyons, hut/campgrounds, and logistical centers then caves should be represented as well. I currently have 4 informational cave pages which are listed as custom objects and I plan to make several more. These pages have gotten a lot of positive feedback and I think they deserve a category.

Now a counter argument would claim that this site is for mountaineering and climbing only. My rebuttal is this, many caves are located in the mountains, with hiking access, sometimes they involve climbing underground as you can see here. If we can accommodate Canyons and the climbing involved onto the SP database, then it's time to welcome caves as well.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 6:32 pm
by Josh Lewis
I agree Gimpilator. Someone tried arguing to me that cavers are totally different people. And canyoneers aren't? Skiers and snowboarders been at each other for a long time. :wink: What matters most is the information in which it pertains to.

Re: Small Additions for SummitPost

PostPosted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 10:36 am
by rgg
For me it's a nobrainer that caves deserve a place on SummitPost. On the front page it says:

SummitPost is a collaborative content community focused on climbing, mountaineering, hiking and other outdoor activities.


While SP seems to be focussing somewhat more on mountaineering and climbing than hiking and the other outdoor activities, there are still many members that enjoy hiking and other outdoor activities, and every day plenty of pictures are posted to prove it.

That said, I'm not sure whether it has to be a separate object type or not (and I do mean this literally - I'm simply not sure either way). A cave could always be described in an Article. And a whole cave system already fits the bill for an Area.