The page is great and thanks for your support of the Kelso Dunes page.
Thank you, and you're welcome!
I like to see these dunes represented here on SP, its a sort of adventure-hike to get out there and hike to the top or just check out these amazingly tall dunes. i think its fitting with the spirit of shared information on this site. i do not think, however, that the defensive section at the end of this page is necessary. if someone wants to vote low let them, it wont diminish the information offered on this page. i voted high because i like the page and the dunes.
Thank you, and I respect your opinion. Eventually, I'll probably remove that section, but I felt it was necessary for the time being. To see my reason, please go to Sequoia's Kelso Dunes page and look at the low vote and the comment, and see how the vote, based on an opinion of worthiness rather than of work quality, pulls the score down. I just don't think that's fair. I realize my message could just entice people like that, but I wanted to say it. Anyway, that's why I put it last-- so it wouldn't dominate the page or set its tone from the beginning.
I just revised that defensive section. I'd be interested to hear your take on it if you get the chance to take a look.
personally i think this is much better, a more positive tone. cheers - jeff
First of all, very nice write up and great photos.
Whereas I agree with Jeffmore that you didn't need to be so defensive, I must also agree with your point that votes tend to be directed more towards the spectacular than towards such elements as quality of writing, set-up, image quality and, dare I say it, spelling and grammar. However, if spectacular is what people vote on, then that's the will of the majority and what we have accept.
For my part (and for what it's worth) I believe that pages such as this have their place on SP. You've provided all the information that any prospective visitor might need to get to, climb and enjoy the dunes. I think it was Scott Patterson who said that that his criteria for full marks would be to just print out the page and head out there.
Might also be a good idea for an album if you've a mind.
Thanks for the vote and the comments, all of them. And I agree with you about grammar and spelling, but I guess that's easy for me to do since I teach English. As I replied to Jeff, I'll likely take that section down soon, perhaps this weekend, but I guess I wanted to make my own point after seeing how someone tarnished the score on the Kelso Dunes page.
The only point of disagreement I'd make is that the person on the Kelso page and the people my remarks seek to deter vote not on what is spectacular (it's hard to argue that dunes aren't spectacular, and it's not hard to get good shots at them if you know when to be there and how to compose) but rather on what they judge is worthy of posting-- so they practice a sort of elitism. If I don't like a page, I just don't vote (I might make a constructively critical comment without a vote) unless it's just awful in grammar, accuracy, etc.
And I have thought of a dunes-themed album. There are many good shots on other people's SP pages, and I have many others of my own from other areas. If I make one, I'll let you know in case you have anything you want to submit.
Thanks again for the feedback.
Pretty well agreed on all points.
There might be an argument for not penalising grammar. To do so would be to practise elitism of a different sort. But poor spelling there's no excuse for. Every word processor has a spellchecker.
Yes I have a few dune shots from Chile - so let me know.
You're right again. By the way, I just revised that section that had the defensive tone. If you get the chance, take a look and give me your impressions of it.
Tons better and, once more, congrats on a very nice submission.
Thanks for all the feedback.
and total agreement with the 'vancouver islander' fellow
(Martin). A lot of people don't realize that these dunes
used to be mountains and rocks. They have been transformed
to sand, and its logical to think of them as landforms.
Have you been to the Coral Pinks in Utah? The last time
I took my wife there, she was "drawn in" to the strange
yet compelling attraction of a sand dune. She just had
to climb to the top of one, and run down the opposite
side. Sand dunes bring out the best of the "fun-loving
children inside all of us."
Thank you for the support, Larry. I sometimes debate deleting all my non-mountain pages, so I appreciate your encouragement.
I've been to the Coral Pink Dunes twice bt never had time to stay very long. My abiding memory is seeing a van stuck in the sand (some genius must have thought custom vans are like ATV's) and watching the tires just spin, spin, spin!
Yeah, ATV's have those balloon tires. Years ago, I found
out about the ATV/van traffic, so I only visit during the
week. There's also a natural arch located near those dunes.
I need to find it the next time I visit. Take care, Bob!
This is a great page. We recently visited these dunes and measured several points with GPS to determine the true high point. USGS maps indicate a central point along the main ridge to be 3497 feet. We measured that point to be 3440 feet plus or minus 14. However the point to the northeast which appeared much higher measured in at 3477 feet plus or minus 14. Even allowing the error range, the northeast point, which is closer to the parking area, is the true highpoint as of January 2015. I realize that the nature of sand is that it can shift and change, but probably not very quickly.
Interesting info. My 3540' for the highpoint is the interpolated elevation for the point you measured as the highpoint.
I also just adjusted the page's coordinates to denote the ridge of the highpoint. When I originally posted this page, it was an area page, and the coordinates were just somewhere on the dunes. I should now go check whether I need to do this for the Mesquite Flat Dunes and Ibex Dunes pages as well, for they originally were area pages, too.
I just went back to check the photos of my GPS after letting it stabilize its reading on both high points. 100' seemed like a large disparity. As it turns out, my memory was off by 100'. So the two measurements I took were actually 3540' and 3577'.
That makes sense. My GPS readings on summits are usually up to 50' higher than the published elevation, and I've known others to observe the same thing.