I like that idea, it might take a while but I can work at it. The page is going to get really long though. Do you have any ideas on how to fix that? I was thinking about adding several lists, but that might start to clutter and get confusing after a while.
Aaron Johnson's suggestion is pretty much what I was going to make. Maybe you could do Colorado since you live there and encourage others to make similar pages for their states. If there's any way you think I might be able to help, let me know.
I might make a custom object and attach it as a child to your page. It will take a lot of time to make the page look as nice as yours does, so I'm not sure when or if I'll get around to it.
Nice look to your page. Love the layout and the black matting.
For additional lists, you might want to consider additional pages that would be attached children to this page. This is what I did to keep the San Juan Range Page from being too long. I created custom objects that were attached as "appendices."
Something to consider in criteria (although minor) is that most of these pages are among SP's earliest, so it stands to reason that they would have more hits. With this "head start," these Top 10 lists won't be changing for a while (so your maintenance of this page will be nil unless you change the look and the photos periodically). That's a good thing in terms of work, but such nice looking work shouldn't go unnoticed. Be sure to draw attention to them whenever you make notable changes with forum posts.
Thanks for the great ideas and nice comments! I think they help the page look clean.
The other way I thought of doing the criteria was by hits per year...but that didn't change the results very much if at all.
I think lists like this are a mistake. The list page is very well-organized and appealing, but the list itself does not have a fixed membership - rather it depends on current SP rankings. Thus, the list does not contain any information that could not be obtained in 30 seconds using SP's built-in search features.
Furthermore, the more lists like this, the more clutter the site will have. For Example, on the Mountains search page, Everest now shows up as a member of the Karakorum, the Seven Summits, AND the Top 10. Not a problem yet, but I don't like the trend.
I’m sorry you feel that way. If you would like to make a custom object detailing what you think the top ten mountains are (in terms of popularity) in the state you climb the most, I would be happy to attach a link to it. This way everyone gets to share what they think. I climb the most in Colorado and I don’t think the ten on the chart are exactly what I consider the top ten mountains in Colorado to be, but they are close.
My criticism isn't that I agree or disagree with the rankings, it's that the rankings a) are not fixed over time and b) are already easily obtainable on the site, plus I fear that this type of page will proliferate and produce a cluttered, less-usable site.
What separates SP from a chat room is that SP is organized to provide good firsthand information about mountains and make it easy to find.
Given that SP already provides a way to find out mountain rankings by SP vote, the questions are:
Does this page provide an easier way to find information?
Maybe. The argument in favor would be that somebody will think to try searching for "top 10" but not ever click the Mountains link. This argument is stronger for, say, the Colorado Top 10, which would otherwise require three mouseclicks. Frankly I'd rather people learn to use the Advanced Search, but I'm not such a curmudgeon that I object to trying to help the clueless.
Does this page provide any new or additional information?
No, but it's well laid out, providing more info "at-a-glance" than the search feature would. There's some risk this list, unlike the search results, could actually provide wrong information if you don't keep it up-to-date, but that's true of most pages.
So given that it has at least a little benefit, what's the problem?
1. Proliferation. Using the logic above, somebody might search for "Top 50" instead of "top 10". Or "top 20" or "top 100". Should those pages get made too?
2. Clutter. Here's why proliferation would be bad: the mountains in this list are children of the list. This membership shows up in the mountain search page. Thus if Everest is in Top 10, Top 50, Top 100, Mountains Fred Likes, Peaks Jim Wants to Climb, and so on, the mountain search page will either have to display only some lists. I'd like to ensure that what shows up on the mountain search page is either geographic information (membership in a range) or a well-established, famous list (Seven Summits), and little or nothing else. A possible technical solution Edit: this is actually what SP already does. See Aconcagua for example is for the search page to display a fixed number of parents, starting with geographic areas/ranges, and then choosing the 'best' lists based on voted rank. My vote reflects my opinion that this list should rank below famous lists.
Augie Medina - Jan 6, 2007 4:25 am - Voted 10/10
Nice IdeaYou might say something about the criteria for the selections in each category.
swm88er - Jan 6, 2007 4:39 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Nice IdeaThanks for the vote and the tip! I added a few words that discribe how I chose the 10 mountains.
Bob Sihler - Jan 6, 2007 11:31 pm - Voted 10/10
I like itA suggestion-- I know it will take a lot of time, but maybe some sections on the top 10 mountain pages for each state, or at least each Western state.
swm88er - Jan 6, 2007 11:54 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: I like itI like that idea, it might take a while but I can work at it. The page is going to get really long though. Do you have any ideas on how to fix that? I was thinking about adding several lists, but that might start to clutter and get confusing after a while.
Bob Sihler - Jan 8, 2007 12:37 am - Voted 10/10
Re: I like itAaron Johnson's suggestion is pretty much what I was going to make. Maybe you could do Colorado since you live there and encourage others to make similar pages for their states. If there's any way you think I might be able to help, let me know.
swm88er - Jan 8, 2007 4:50 am - Hasn't voted
Re: I like itIf there are any states that you want to take I’d be more than happy to share the privileges with you.
Bob Sihler - Jan 9, 2007 1:09 am - Voted 10/10
Re: I like itI might make a custom object and attach it as a child to your page. It will take a lot of time to make the page look as nice as yours does, so I'm not sure when or if I'll get around to it.
ericnoel - Jan 7, 2007 2:04 am - Hasn't voted
Minor detailFYI you have two #7s and no #9 on the US list.
swm88er - Jan 7, 2007 4:38 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Minor detailSorry, thanks for letting me know.
Aaron Johnson - Jan 7, 2007 3:15 pm - Hasn't voted
Added ListsNice look to your page. Love the layout and the black matting.
For additional lists, you might want to consider additional pages that would be attached children to this page. This is what I did to keep the San Juan Range Page from being too long. I created custom objects that were attached as "appendices."
Something to consider in criteria (although minor) is that most of these pages are among SP's earliest, so it stands to reason that they would have more hits. With this "head start," these Top 10 lists won't be changing for a while (so your maintenance of this page will be nil unless you change the look and the photos periodically). That's a good thing in terms of work, but such nice looking work shouldn't go unnoticed. Be sure to draw attention to them whenever you make notable changes with forum posts.
swm88er - Jan 7, 2007 10:35 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Added ListsThanks for the great ideas and nice comments! I think they help the page look clean.
The other way I thought of doing the criteria was by hits per year...but that didn't change the results very much if at all.
nartreb - Jan 8, 2007 3:08 pm - Voted 8/10
what is added?I think lists like this are a mistake. The list page is very well-organized and appealing, but the list itself does not have a fixed membership - rather it depends on current SP rankings. Thus, the list does not contain any information that could not be obtained in 30 seconds using SP's built-in search features.
Furthermore, the more lists like this, the more clutter the site will have. For Example, on the Mountains search page, Everest now shows up as a member of the Karakorum, the Seven Summits, AND the Top 10. Not a problem yet, but I don't like the trend.
swm88er - Jan 9, 2007 2:31 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: what is added?I’m sorry you feel that way. If you would like to make a custom object detailing what you think the top ten mountains are (in terms of popularity) in the state you climb the most, I would be happy to attach a link to it. This way everyone gets to share what they think. I climb the most in Colorado and I don’t think the ten on the chart are exactly what I consider the top ten mountains in Colorado to be, but they are close.
nartreb - Jan 9, 2007 4:56 pm - Voted 8/10
Re: what is added?My criticism isn't that I agree or disagree with the rankings, it's that the rankings a) are not fixed over time and b) are already easily obtainable on the site, plus I fear that this type of page will proliferate and produce a cluttered, less-usable site.
What separates SP from a chat room is that SP is organized to provide good firsthand information about mountains and make it easy to find.
Given that SP already provides a way to find out mountain rankings by SP vote, the questions are:
Does this page provide an easier way to find information?
Maybe. The argument in favor would be that somebody will think to try searching for "top 10" but not ever click the Mountains link. This argument is stronger for, say, the Colorado Top 10, which would otherwise require three mouseclicks. Frankly I'd rather people learn to use the Advanced Search, but I'm not such a curmudgeon that I object to trying to help the clueless.
Does this page provide any new or additional information?
No, but it's well laid out, providing more info "at-a-glance" than the search feature would. There's some risk this list, unlike the search results, could actually provide wrong information if you don't keep it up-to-date, but that's true of most pages.
So given that it has at least a little benefit, what's the problem?
1. Proliferation. Using the logic above, somebody might search for "Top 50" instead of "top 10". Or "top 20" or "top 100". Should those pages get made too?
2. Clutter. Here's why proliferation would be bad: the mountains in this list are children of the list. This membership shows up in the mountain search page. Thus if Everest is in Top 10, Top 50, Top 100, Mountains Fred Likes, Peaks Jim Wants to Climb, and so on, the mountain search page will either have to display only some lists. I'd like to ensure that what shows up on the mountain search page is either geographic information (membership in a range) or a well-established, famous list (Seven Summits), and little or nothing else. A possible technical solution Edit: this is actually what SP already does. See Aconcagua for example is for the search page to display a fixed number of parents, starting with geographic areas/ranges, and then choosing the 'best' lists based on voted rank. My vote reflects my opinion that this list should rank below famous lists.
McCannster - Jan 13, 2007 1:13 am - Voted 10/10
Haha TikabooKinda funny how there's a bunch of world famous peaks on here and then there's...Tikaboo.
swm88er - Jan 13, 2007 4:57 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Haha TikabooI thought it was funny too!
Scott - Jan 25, 2007 6:34 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Haha TikabooTikaboo
The SP page is linked to a popular UFO site. That is why it has so many hits.
McCannster - Jan 25, 2007 9:09 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Haha TikabooI know that! Its the best legal view one can have of Area 51.
vertx - Jan 25, 2007 4:58 pm - Voted 10/10
Cool IdeaI like the idea. It was a fun way to look at a few of those pages and pics. Thanks.
swm88er - Jan 29, 2007 2:28 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Cool IdeaI'm glad you liked it! Thanks for stopping by.