kamil wrote:I wouldn't nuke this one either.
Some others are already nuked and I can't be arsed looking for google copies...

Kamil,
This one hasn't been nuked as you see. And the others were worthless - if you can't believe it, get arsed looking

yatsek wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:I also don't really see the point of deleting trip reports, unless the author is long gone AND it is obvious that the report is of absolutely no value.

You may be right but what's the SP value of a TR nobody has bothered to cast a vote on over six years?

I completely agree with Chad. You should look at trip reports different than at mountains/areas/routes.

JasonH wrote:... Lack of votes shouldn't be grounds for deletion....

Completely agree again.

yatsek wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:I also don't really see the point of deleting trip reports, unless the author is long gone AND it is obvious that the report is of absolutely no value.

You may be right but what's the SP value of a TR nobody has bothered to cast a vote on over six years?

From what I gather, voting behavior was much different a few years ago than it is today, so something that might get votes today might have missed them when it was submitted a few years ago. And most items over a few weeks old only get a couple votes per year, if any at all.

Just think that for a trip report, perhaps the criteria be that it is totaly and unambiguously worthless (AND the author gone), whereas for mountains, routes, and areas it should be compared to what is generally perceived as a quality contribution (in Bob Sihler's view is good enough for me, to avoid getting too specific).

JasonH wrote:

yatsek wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:I also don't really see the point of deleting trip reports, unless the author is long gone AND it is obvious that the report is of absolutely no value.

You may be right but what's the SP value of a TR nobody has bothered to cast a vote on over six years?

So, I have a lot of good stuff nobody votes on. Lack of votes shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Maybe low votes, but not no votes.

I don't think lack of votes was grounds for deletion - that's why I guess one hasn't ben nuked. But OK, point taken, I think I'll keep off any TR's (But don't think it's me who deletes anything )

Bob Sihler wrote:

sjarelkwint wrote:Instead of deleting them, can't you give them up for adopting? Might be a faster way to find new and better owners ...

People are aways willing to offer, but I'm not likely to make a lot of progress by waiting around for people to step up. It's easier to delete and make the mountain "available" to someone else. In the past few days, I've gotten rid of about 150 pages of various sorts; now someone else is free to start anew.

Wow, what a whirlwind you've had going on over here!! There's a bit of a downside to it, though. I see you nuked Top Notch Peak in the Absarokas, which was a poor but not useless page about a peak that isn't totally obscure--it has some interest to the general public. I had signed the summit log and could probably have picked it up and upgraded to at least minimum standards. But I wouldn't want to start from scratch due to lack of photos.

Not all of us watch the threads like hawks. When preparing to nuke a page that's not just a shell, I wonder if it might be worth notifying active SPers who have commented, signed the summit log, or otherwise shown a prior interest in the page with a form PM that says they have 48 hours to respond if they'd like to adopt.

chugach mtn boy wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:

sjarelkwint wrote:Instead of deleting them, can't you give them up for adopting? Might be a faster way to find new and better owners ...

People are aways willing to offer, but I'm not likely to make a lot of progress by waiting around for people to step up. It's easier to delete and make the mountain "available" to someone else. In the past few days, I've gotten rid of about 150 pages of various sorts; now someone else is free to start anew.

Wow, what a whirlwind you've had going on over here!! There's a bit of a downside to it, though. I see you nuked Top Notch Peak in the Absarokas, which was a poor but not useless page about a peak that isn't totally obscure--it has some interest to the general public. I had signed the summit log and could probably have picked it up and upgraded to at least minimum standards. But I wouldn't want to start from scratch due to lack of photos.

Not all of us watch the threads like hawks. When preparing to nuke a page that's not just a shell, I wonder if it might be worth notifying active SPers who have commented, signed the summit log, or otherwise shown a prior interest in the page with a form PM that says they have 48 hours to respond if they'd like to adopt.

Good points but I would favor keeping the 'Up for adoption process' in a forum, though added the suggestion for PMs has no downside for non-elves that I can see. Certainly would be better to give folks an option to adopt an old page (even if terrible) for the reasons listed. I would increase the time from 48 hrs to 2 weeks for longstanding pages (if it has numberous members who have submitted photos, signed the log, etc...). Everyone shouldn't be expected to log in every week throughout the year.

kamil wrote:Yatsek, hold your horses! There are loads of route pages with few photos but decent description and old TRs with no pics like that... some new TRs have less text than those but a shitload of fancy pics and get loads of 10s or even make it to the front page!

BTW I liked the old smileys a lot more than those

All those pages Yatsek listed are gone but two, one of the routes and the list page. Neither is very good, in my opinion, but they are "complete."

Evaluating older route pages can be tricky. Back in the day, there was an expectation that every mountain page would have at least one route page, even if it was for the standard two-mile trail up the mountain. Thus, you get a lot of pages that by today's standards are inferior but back then were part of what was expected. Many do not have a single image because the parent page was the place to put the image. That's also why a lot of decent old route pages with no votes exist; people were voting on the mountain pages, and part of the vote was based on whether a route page existed.

Nowadays, when a route isn't really worth its own page, people often cover the route on the main page, but that wasn't the norm in the earlier days of SP.

So when there is what looks like a weak older route page, I check to see if the author is also the author for the parent page. If he is and the parent page is complete, then I tend to keep the route page unless it is total junk. Someone can always offer to adopt it, of course. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm keeping in mind the original intent and the norms back then when viewing those pages.

I do think it's one of the big inconsistencies on SP-- the many pages that never got updated after SPv2 and which look really dated in both layout and the information presented. They once were good pages, and many still are, but a lot seem way behind today's standards. Today, for better or worse, a lot of us expect more information, more pictures, and a more attractive layout than the series of thumbs that was the standard format back then. Some may even remember that you couldn't even select the images to display back then; they automatically displayed in their sections by score, meaning only the top five were shown. The owner could do nothing about this short of detaching the pictures.

yatsek wrote:

kamil wrote:I wouldn't nuke this one either.
Some others are already nuked and I can't be arsed looking for google copies...

Kamil,
This one hasn't been nuked as you see. And the others were worthless - if you can't believe it, get arsed looking

I had a quick look before they were nuked - in some cases I could agree with you.

When it comes to the TR - this one comes from SPv1 times when it was not possible to vote on TRs, hence no votes. And who would vote on an average TR several years after it was posted when it was dug deep in the dark corners of SP.

Now its author will become an SP star, a local hero, an innocent victim of the new broom. Let's start an initiative towards bringing back the nuked TR!

JasonH wrote:

yatsek wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:I also don't really see the point of deleting trip reports, unless the author is long gone AND it is obvious that the report is of absolutely no value.

You may be right but what's the SP value of a TR nobody has bothered to cast a vote on over six years?

So, I have a lot of good stuff nobody votes on. Lack of votes shouldn't be grounds for deletion. Maybe low votes, but not no votes.

As explained in my post above, I am cautious about nuking something with no votes, especially an older page.

In my opinion, those trip reports were terrible-- no interesting tale, no useful route comments, just an account of the day. Given the lack of accompanying pictures, I had to make the call that they were just taking up space.

kamil wrote:Now its author will become an SP star, a local hero, an innocent victim of the new broom. Let's start an initiative towards bringing back the nuked TR!

Kamil, you'd better do some cleaning in your EC European home.

BTW
http://www.summitpost.org/route/158882/ ... stick.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... ienok.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... ierom.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... achom.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... 318-a.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/480177/pp-variant.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html

chugach mtn boy wrote:There's a bit of a downside to it, though. I see you nuked Top Notch Peak in the Absarokas, which was a poor but not useless page about a peak that isn't totally obscure--it has some interest to the general public. I had signed the summit log and could probably have picked it up and upgraded to at least minimum standards. But I wouldn't want to start from scratch due to lack of photos.

Not all of us watch the threads like hawks. When preparing to nuke a page that's not just a shell, I wonder if it might be worth notifying active SPers who have commented, signed the summit log, or otherwise shown a prior interest in the page with a form PM that says they have 48 hours to respond if they'd like to adopt.

Nuking Top Notch Peak was a tough call, but it had a really low score, hadn't been worked on in a long time, and both it and the route page had empty sections that were supposedly under construction. The page was going nowhere. Now the page is available for someone else to create. Maybe the original author will even come along and want to get it done this time. But I'll repeat that the page wasn't headed anywhere.

Maybe I should have checked the logs. I actually thought I did, but I apparently didn't, because I would have noticed you as an active member and asked. Next time, I'll be a little more diligent about that if the page seems to have any potential at all.

If you do want to make a page, though, the photos still exist, because I only deleted the pages. And I know there are some decent photos of the peak by people other than the original page owner. Some weren't attached to the former page.

Here are some: http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=314561
http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=193587
http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=174332
http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=182441

With good route information, you could build a decent page with just those pictures alone. You could probably find more on the Avalanche Peak page. I think you should have at least one of your own, but that's not a rule.

yatsek wrote:

kamil wrote:Now its author will become an SP star, a local hero, an innocent victim of the new broom. Let's start an initiative towards bringing back the nuked TR!

Kamil, you'd better do some cleaning in your EC European home.

BTW
http://www.summitpost.org/route/158882/ ... stick.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... ienok.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... ierom.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... achom.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... 318-a.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/480177/pp-variant.html
http://www.summitpost.org/hut/campgroun ... chata.html

Oh my...I'll leave those up for a little bit so everyone can enjoy them.

From my very own yard on which I'm working
http://www.summitpost.org/route/156644/ ... niacy.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/165348/zyga.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/165350/ ... izyki.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/165352/ ... yczne.html
http://www.summitpost.org/route/165346/mu-mu-mu.html
and this
http://www.summitpost.org/album/480178/Aid.html

SoCalHiker wrote:I completely agree with Chad. You should look at trip reports different than at mountains/areas/routes.

I second that (or would it be "I third that")! As has been stated numerous times, Mountains, Areas and Routes are the heart and soul of SP. These pages need a higher level of scrutiny than TRs.

In a lot of these old TRs, the number of votes and pictures don't necessarily mean a lot when you are looking for beta.

Case in point: http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/168849/cathedral-peak.html
This TR has one vote in 7 years and no pictures. It also happens to be the only TR that gives any beta on climbing this peak during the summer. The TR in reality gives more beta on critical portions of the route than the Route page (which was completed by the same member ).

The critical beta in a TR is typically buried in the story that is being told...one has to look a little harder to find it...but it is stil there.