Nice work, Chad, I'm confident this new approach will bring us the resolution we need.
Matt, thanks for giving Chad's proposal a shot. It seems to offer a good effort/outcome ratio.
by Sarah Simon » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:36 pm
by mrchad9 » Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:36 pm
by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:52 am
by Bob Burd » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:44 am
by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:02 am
by Scott » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:29 pm
The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.
by Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:51 pm
Scott wrote:The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.
Just my opinion, but make images votable, but not worth any points or whatever. It may help solve the debates about dumping images/etc. that seem to plague SP with predictable frequency. It really doesn't take any real effort to add a photo anyway.
by Bubba Suess » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:55 pm
by mrchad9 » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:16 pm
by Bob Sihler » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:21 pm
by Buz Groshong » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:53 pm
Bob Sihler wrote:Scott wrote:The image points seem far too high at the high score end. Seems like the intention back on SPv2 was to have about a 100:1 ratio between a mountain/route/area pages to image pages.
Just my opinion, but make images votable, but not worth any points or whatever. It may help solve the debates about dumping images/etc. that seem to plague SP with predictable frequency. It really doesn't take any real effort to add a photo anyway.
I think that's a good idea. Honestly, I'd rather see no voting on pictures at all, which would put a quick end to the dumping and the manipulation games. Imagine if people focused their attention on the actual pages the pictures enhance! But I know very few will agree with me on that.
by Buz Groshong » Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:58 pm
Bob Sihler wrote:As the heart of this site is mountains and routes, I really think they should count more than other objects. But this is just an opinion, not another wrench to try throwing into the process.
by Sarah Simon » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:10 pm
Bubba Suess wrote:This is totally nit-picking, but ought canyons at least be equivalent to Mountains and Areas? Keep the physical features at the same level. Pages like this, which has lots of climbing beta should be worth as much as a mountain.
by Sarah Simon » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:14 pm
by Matt Lemke » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:24 pm
Sarah Simon wrote:As for Routes...if anything's under-appreciated on this site, it's our routes. They are the utility workhorses of this community.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests