asmrz wrote:I have been reading this post for a while now, so maybe I should chime in. I have been member since about 2002. I joined to get good technical data on rock climbs, no BS info on routes, good beta to approach peaks and quality info on routes. I thought I could not get it anywhere else. Well, I was mostly wrong. Almost everytime I get info on a route on SP, I find that in the field, I see totally different issues, approaches are not correct, routes are not set up with care and a lot of info is, how do I say it, garbage? I think if we constructively look at the quality content of Summitpost, we cannot like what we see. I read a lot of pretty stuff, but very little hard info. Sure, Whitney, Eiger, Kilimangaro (insert your own big peak) are very extensive, but maybe just for those who would rather read fluff while having their coffee and much less for research to actually go climbing. I don't need pretty route descriptions, I really need hard and correct data. The challenge as I see it, is to increase the QUALITY of the SP content, not the QUANTITY of it. Secondly, I see less and less routes, TR, and notes about technical climbs. People who are connected with technical climbing are leaving the site. I have not seen technical route or technical trip report in many days. That is not good. If the SP powers want to have a hiking site, they already suceeded, but if they want to continue to have a true world climbing library, they need to make changes to restore the importance of technical climbing and mountaineering on SP. Separate the site for hiking and climbing, those two are after all completely different.

I doubt anyone steered the site into being a "hiking" site moreso than a "climbing" site. It is a reflection of what's out there: more hikes than climbs, let's say. No one is stopping people from submitting technical climbs/route info. The variety of peaks/climbs/hikes on SP is what gives it its unique character. I have been a member since 2003 and I appreciate the breadth of peaks from all over the world, plus the interesting and unruly mob that populates this site. Too many other hike/climb sites get too focused on one aspect and frankly, gets boring fast.

New members do have a challenge in establishing themselves as contributors, but that can be done through well-written trip reports, routes and things like that. Then they can see if an elf is willing to hand over an abandoned site to them. I gobbled up a lot of peaks in TX and NM when SP was still young but have handed a lot of them off to people better suited to keep them updated. I don't mind that.

Lastly, if people want to avoid having others alter their sites, try to write about mountains no one else wants to climb, e.g. http://www.summitpost.org/vulture-peak/153094. Works well for me.

Josh Lewis wrote:Larry here is how it works.

Thanks, I feel like I'm learning something.

Josh Lewis wrote:With many of the suggestions above we can for sure figure out a method which does not demise one's personal touch on a page while retaining the beta. I am very pleased that site admins stepped forward to attempt to being change to SP!

Agreed ! But, there's some people who can't deal with a fair amount of change. It must be well-laid out, and hopefully will pan out in specific stages.

"Change is inevitable - except from a vending machine. "

Secondly, I see less and less routes, TR, and notes about technical climbs. People who are connected with technical climbing are leaving the site. I have not seen technical route or technical trip report in many days. That is not good.

So why not add one? If there aren't any, it is the technical climbers themselves who are at blame.

asmrz wrote:Separate the site for hiking and climbing, those two are after all completely different.

Sorry - I thought we were supposed to be coming together rather than drifting apart. Separation is not always good.

Part of the reason I joined this site was my perception that hiking and climbing are married to each other. Opposites attract.

This young boy disagrees with your statement.



Summitpost was designed for summits... right? And if you look out into the real life world, what do you see more of. Peak baggers who are climbers, or peak baggers who are hikers and scramblers? You must consider this factor before you go on to say we have too many hikers on this site. Once I learn how to lead on rock, I'll have to be sure to be sharing some nice beta on technical stuff too!

Some more comments as the discussion continues:

1. The option most widely accepted so far seems to be adding an open section at the end of the main page.

2. 90-day rule: No. If you see a real problem with a page and the owner is inactive or unresponsive, contact the elves and we'll see what we can do. Standard protocol is this: if the owner has been active within the past year, send email and PM and wait two weeks; if the owner has been inactive for over a year and the page is weak, we'll probably transfer the page to you if you're a "known quantity." Situations that don't fall cleanly into one of those two have to be considered individually. If you see a problem that needs immediate correction because it might otherwise get someone killed, tell us.

3. As I write this, 9 of the 15 (60%) new route pages are technical and/or alpine. You could argue that a tenth is as well depending on how you want to define the terms. Quality varies. There is more technical stuff here than some seem willing to admit or recognize. Those who want to see more should contribute more. However, those looking for SP to rival MP for rock climbing routes are probably going to always be disappointed. SP is geared towards mountains, with routes from hikes to expeditions, and it is also much broader in scope (not necessarily a good thing, but that's the way it is).

4. The current POTD is a climbing shot. So is the current POTW. Vote for them. Encourage the members and show them you appreciate their efforts. One of those members joined pretty recently and has just started contributing pages. Show him some support, which includes polite constructive criticism if you deem it warranted.

Again, thank you for all the feedback and for the civil discussion even where there is strong disagreement.

Oh, and no, we wouldn't want any "public options" on private pages such as albums and trip reports.

Bob Sihler, The issue as I see it is not inactive people, but overactive people who post stuff that does not pass the mustard. The fact that we can get points for anything posted, results in (exactly) a lot of stuff that should not be posted at all, but it is, because it get us points. You see, on SP points are more important than content. That is a problem and no attempt to activate or deactivate people will fix that. SP needs to find a way to discourage pages etc based on points and encourage contributions based on personal knowledge and experience.

asmrz wrote:Bob Sihler, The issue as I see it is not inactive people, but overactive people who post stuff that does not pass the mustard. The fact that we can get points for anything posted, results in (exactly) a lot of stuff that should not be posted at all, but it is, because it get us points. You see, on SP points are more important than content. That is a problem and no attempt to activate or deactivate people will fix that. SP needs to find a way to discourage pages etc based on points and encourage contributions based on personal knowledge and experience.

So, if you rejigger, what is it?

Range = 10 x mountain
Mountain = 10 x route
Route = 10 x TR
TR = 10 x image

Just to start the discussion . . . .

asmrz wrote:Bob Sihler, The issue as I see it is not inactive people, but overactive people who post stuff that does not pass the mustard.

Not sure where we'd be without the "over-achiever" types. Life would be pretty boring, and I'd probably get thirsty.

asmrz wrote:Bob Sihler, The issue as I see it is not inactive people, but overactive people who post stuff that does not pass the mustard. The fact that we can get points for anything posted, results in (exactly) a lot of stuff that should not be posted at all, but it is, because it get us points. You see, on SP points are more important than content. That is a problem and no attempt to activate or deactivate people will fix that. SP needs to find a way to discourage pages etc based on points and encourage contributions based on personal knowledge and experience.

I'm sorry but I can't help asking: Does this "pass the mustard?" http://www.summitpost.org/san-gorgonio-the-long-way-a-ski-trip/157366

I guess this is a site where just about everybody thinks everybody else is posting lame stuff, and if we could only get those other people under control ...

I quite like the idea if you as in me are the page owner and someone has vital information they can fill in a window with all the relevant information, pictures etc then it gets submitted to myself to approve then I can just open the edit page and add the block in with any remedial work I feel might need required to match my current page style.

I will be honest members like myself Boydie and Nanuls do put a lot of work into our pages but there is always other information that we might miss.

Hopefully which ever way a decision is made something positive will come out of it...!

Pictures this size would solve most of the problems:


Or this size:

lcarreau wrote:

asmrz wrote:Separate the site for hiking and climbing, those two are after all completely different.

Sorry - I thought we were supposed to be coming together rather than drifting apart. Separation is not always good.

Part of the reason I joined this site was my perception that hiking and climbing are married to each other. Opposites attract.

Opposites attract, get married and then split up. If they have to - or both want to - go on living in the same, their beautiful old house, they have to have their own rooms so that neither goes insane. That's why I think separating Technical Routes from the other routes would make sense if we don't want technical climbers to feel confused or excluded.

I'm not too excited about separating Technical Routes from other routes. I feel like they are already separated! If you want technical stuff just search by category (Trad, Aid, Mixed, Ice, etc.) or plug in a desired rock climbing rating to get technical content. I dunno, if it seems important there could be a button that wraps that up into a saved query like (CATEGORY=Trad Or Aid Or...) OR (YDSRating >= 5.0).

But this is trivial, and no important contributor left the site because of that. Knoback had a variety of reasons for leaving, some of which we can address and others we can't. We've all talked a lot about it.

It's possible to overdraw the problem of technical climbers leaving. Who needs a bunch of whiners anyway, is a natural response to that. People come on one side or the other of this collaboration idea for their own reasons. My reason is this nature of content creation would suit me better.

I like the idea of an editable section on the page for extra information (additions and corrections). I like Mark's idea above of having a note at the top of the page indicating there is such info at the bottom, and allowing a hyperlink jump to it. It does make sense for owners to be able to remove these links, or at least to mark them as "ADDRESSED" and minimize their prominence. I agree that we can't count on these ersatz editors to come back and remove every comment they make themselves!

Thanks again,
--Michael

ps - it's true we are designing by committee here...but at least we are taking power in our hands which is good and important to exercise. It would be great if we had a Steve Jobs at the helm to dazzle us with surprising twists and turns of the feature set, but we don't. +1 for this process, in my book.