Recently I posted a page about the Hourgade peak in the Pyrenees, and I made a mistake about the height: a 9 turned into a 0 and the height decreases of 2/3, from 2964 (an almost-three-thousander) to 2064 (an unsignificant peaklet).
I don't want to sound too conceited, but I think my page equals more or less the past ones I have made about the Pyrenees peaks considering the content, which means getting from 15 to 20 votes. I was surprised the Hourgade got only 6 votes on a Friday afternoon (a time when most people at work are likely to finish their week on SP...)
Until Rafa underlined the height problem !
Sad to say, but I have he slight feeling the popularity of pages are more closely related to the mountains heights than to the content itself... Who else has this feeling ?

TacoDelRio wrote:900ft doesn't mean anything, though.

Maybe, but 900 *meters* is fairly significant.

I think it's an interesting observation, but maybe there's another explanation?

Your Hourgade page has 9 votes now (all 10 out of 10!). I think it may have more to do how many people are surfing the new pages and also how many people are interested in the peak or area around the peak. I do a lot of reading of the pages about the peaks within a days reach of where I live.

By the way your page is excellent!

RickF wrote:By the way your page is excellent!

Thanks !
Indeed, as some said here, the votes are not too important for me.. I'm just happy if people who need this page find the content they need in it, I see that the usual people consulting the Pyrenees saw and liked it.
However in one of the next peaks I'm going to submit I'm tempted to repeat the experiment by submitting a temporary wrong height majored of 1000m, just to see !

drjohnso1182 wrote:

TacoDelRio wrote:900ft doesn't mean anything, though.

Maybe, but 900 *meters* is fairly significant.

I think it's an interesting observation, but maybe there's another explanation?

I don't think there needs to be another. Climbers like to climb big things. Things here are a bit different, but I wouldn't even look at a 2000-2500m peak page around here. It wouldn't be worth the effort to get there to climb it. (Might be different for rock climbs)