Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

by **Brian C** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:38 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Brian, what is the point of having a page owner, if more than half the work is done by other members? In that case it is just a Wikipedia page. And I don't favor that. That is the problem. If you aren't going to put any effort into it, you shouldn't own it.

I completely agree that there are some pages that need to have some more work put into them, but once it reaches a certain point is personal taste and the trouble would be who determines where that line would be drawn. One person's definition of a good page may be dramatically more detailed than another and both could still be good pages. Brian's Denali page is not bad at all and the information presented is good, but I do agree that I have seen many other pages that either look more attractive or have much more detail. Also, if another members takes a page and then uses any of the information previously on there, then should it not show the original owner's name? Say if you wanted to rework the West Butt page and have it completely under your name, then it seems that all of the original content should be deleted. Or not? I don't know. Something does need to be done about old/forgotten pages with poor info, but I'm not sure just because one person thinks they could present the info slightly better shouldn't necessarily mean the original owner loses all connections to the page unless they're long inactive or the left a blank page (especially if the owner is willing to work with people to make it better). There's got to be a really good way to do this.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:48 pm

Look at why did he adopted the Mount Barnard page. He didn't add anything there. He's only collecting page titles and points. Nothing more. And to me that is the worst type of member because they simply stand in the way of better content.

Do you think he has been a sufficient steward of the West Butress page the past two years? Or would we be better off seeking out a member who is willing to put some effort into it?

I think the 'do-nothing' process we've had for the past many years in handling these pages has to change.

Brian C- the issues with the Avalache Gulch page are not slight. I pointed out many issues with it. And giving it new life could make it dramatically better. I don't doubt the same with Josh taking the Mount Baker example. And I am happy to delete everything existing on it, none of the photos are Brian Kalets and the text isn't particularly useful (and some of it is wrong).

Also Brian Kalet is not the ORIGINAL owner of any of these! He simply stuck them under his profile and did little after they were handed to him. He has no skin in the game. That is why I think this situation is also a bit different than one that is talking about an original work. And much of the content that is there he had nothing to do with. He has spent all of 10 minutes total on all these pages put together. I see no reason to recognize that level of effort.

by **Brian C** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:02 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Also Brian Kalet is not the ORIGINAL owner of any of these! He simply stuck them under his profile and did little after they were handed to him. He has no skin in the game. That is why I think this situation is also a bit different than one that is talking about an original work. And much of the content that is there he had nothing to do with. He has spent all of 10 minutes total on all these pages put together. I see no reason to recognize that level of effort.

You're absolutely right then. If someone adopts a page they should take ownership. I didn't realize that these were adopted pages.

There still is the issue of pages on popular peaks or routes that could be better. I was thinking more something like this...
http://www.summitpost.org/the-maiden-st ... ace/167394
The info is all there and I could get to the summit by using this page, but it could be alot better. It always bothers me when I see a page that has miscellaneous and it still says "If you have information about this route that doesn't pertain to any of the other sections, please add it here."

The following user would like to thank Brian C for this post
Fletch, lcarreau, mrchad9

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:06 pm

Thank you Brian C, yes that is the issue.

But I don't think the owner of that page is creating a problem. They haven't logged in for years and aren't trying to hold someone else's work. Do you want that page? Just take it.

by **Brian C** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:14 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Thank you Brian C, yes that is the issue.

But I don't think the owner of that page is creating a problem. They haven't logged in for years and aren't trying to hold someone else's work. Do you want that page? Just take it.

I don't want it. I just think it is an example of how a page can be good enough for most and still be a good page but could be done "better" too. Not sure how the best way to make things the best info that they can be without giving someone's page away to someone who can "pretty it up". Seems like group ownership on pages would be cool until somebody got mad and deleted the other person's stuff. I don't know, just thinking outloud.

by **Scott** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:15 pm

If someone adopts a page, they should definitely improve it. If they don't improve it, the page should be considered to be still abandoned. If that is the main issue with these pages, then I agree 100%.

The following user would like to thank Scott for this post
Josh Lewis, mrchad9, rgg

by **yatsek** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:16 pm

Scott wrote:
What SP needs badly is some form of competition. There should be a path open for contenders. If the new page gets - say within a month - a higher score, it should replace the old one.

There used to be that feature. It was called a "Challenge Page". The feature was deleted because it didn't work because no one wanted to do it (afraid that it would cause big offense).

It seems that things have changed and these days there would be a few young guns willing to give it a go.

The following user would like to thank yatsek for this post
lcarreau

by **lcarreau** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:41 pm

Scott wrote:If someone adopts a page, they should definitely improve it.

+1 for the Scott-Master! I just finished "improving" two of my pages which I had adopted from "inactive" members.

yatsek wrote:It seems that things have changed and these days there would be a few young guns willing to give it a go.

Yes, my friend, things have CHANGED. It's time for the "Old Buzzards" to give these "Young Guns" some target practice! .......

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
mrchad9

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:50 pm

Scott wrote:If someone adopts a page, they should definitely improve it. If they don't improve it, the page should be considered to be still abandoned. If that is the main issue with these pages, then I agree 100%.

That is the issue Scott!

by **brichardsson** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:55 pm

I think the biggest reason new folks are shy to step up is the perception that a) they don't have much to offer or b) their voice won't be heard due to politics.

I have been very hesitant to create or attempt to adopt content because I haven't been around that long. But my own experience in trying simply to correct out of date or inaccurate pages has been less than rewarding. Most of the folks (on the pages I looked at) abandoned them long ago, in some cases 5-8 years ago, and things have changed since then. Or were never accurate and/or complete in the first place. But I get absolutely no response from them, and the pages remain incorrect or incomplete.

But trying to actually adopt a page is difficult. And a voting system would be inherently flawed. How do you subjectively evaluate what should be objective data? I mean, either the trail head, route, etc. info is there, or it isn't, right?

But the voting I've seen is capricious. I have a pic that got a slew of 10/10 votes, and then smack in the middle of it, one 4/10, with no explanation. Please understand: my point is not to complain, but my point is to demonstrate that if there is no effective mechanism of explaining the rhyme or reason for a particular vote, then voting ("challenging") on pages would be an exercise in futility.

IMHO, criteria should be strictly objective: trail head info, route info, pictures, etc. If someone can make a reasonable case to the elves that the page is inaccurate or incomplete, then the owner should be given a period of time to bring it up-to-date. And if they do not, then it should be relinquished.

I value SP because I find a lot of good stuff here, and I'm finally trying to start to give back a little. So while I don't think voting/challenging for page adoption would be a good process, I do agree something needs to be done to encourage the most correct and up-to-date content.

by **Fletch** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:11 pm

We should always strive to improve the pages here. If someone wants to make your pages better, LET THEM!!! It's for the betterment of the group. I had to wrestle the Denali page from an old inactive member. He actually logged back in in June or something when I was making my move and it was a couple more months before Bob and the Elves decided that it was in better hands with me. I spent a lot of time fixing that page up, but if someone wants to take it, FINE! --- just improve it. Otherwise, it should stay with me if no one is going to do anything with it...

Chad, one thought here. Brian Kalet is a very good climber, has lots of useful info on many other websites (especially for Colorado), and enjoys a pretty good reputation here in CO. I would hesitate to slam him for not doing what you want. He may just be deploying resources and time elsewhere. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think Brian is a good dude. iIve never met him, but I've heard good things about him --- I just don't think this is some troll trying to steal a page for points --- I honestly think he could care less. Maybe give him another shot to make good? I agree with everything you are saying, but just be a bit more tactful when saying it. Brian may end up suprising everyone...

As always, I appreciate your efforts to make this place better... carry on.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:26 pm

Respectfully Fletch... this isn't about being a good or bad climber, it is about how content is managed, especially content that wasn't even submitted by the current owner to start with. He's had the page for years, and as noted he took one of the Sierra pages two years ago and he has done absolutely nothing with it. There is an obvious pattern if you look at those pages. Also... this was handled differently initially, but as Josh (and you) point out it isn't working well the way it has been managed in the past. Things need to be more dynamic when there is an obvious benefit to the page and the site.

Your Denali page is a great example too! That is a super page now, and it shouldn't have taken you months and going through an unpleasant experience to enable to you handle it. That wasn't the right process.

Fletch wrote:We should always strive to improve the pages here. If someone wants to make your pages better, LET THEM!!! It's for the betterment of the group. I had to wrestle the Denali page from an old inactive member. He actually logged back in in June or something when I was making my move and it was a couple more months before Bob and the Elves decided that it was in better hands with me. I spent a lot of time fixing that page up, but if someone wants to take it, FINE! --- just improve it. Otherwise, it should stay with me if no one is going to do anything with it...

Agreed.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:31 pm

Montana Matt wrote:I know that this topic is mostly directed toward adopted pages that aren't improved, which is a slightly different situation than pages that simply are out of date or are lacking information. I agree with the sentiment in this thread that if a page is adopted and not improved within a short amount of time, it should still be considered orphaned (or up for adoption) and should be transferred to someone who will invest the time and energy to improve the page. This is especially true if the new owner didn't even add any significant content to the page. However, in cases where a real effort was made to improve the page, but the results were just not all that great, more care should be taken with deciding how to proceed.
brichardsson wrote:IMHO, criteria should be strictly objective: trail head info, route info, pictures, etc. If someone can make a reasonable case to the elves that the page is inaccurate or incomplete, then the owner should be given a period of time to bring it up-to-date. And if they do not, then it should be relinquished.

I like this idea. Perhaps a reasonable process to propose for adopting pages is the following:
1) A member contacts the elves stating clearly what the page is lacking or how it could be improved. There should be some concrete list of things that they believe need to be added to bring the page up to date or to simply improve it.
2) The elves review the list and, if they find sufficient reason to, the member owning the page is contacted and provided the list of needed improvements. The owner is given 30 to 60 days (depending on the magnitude of the changes and other outstanding factors) to implement the changes.
3) When the changes have been made the member contacts the elves (or after the 30 to 60 day window passes). The elves then review the page to ensure that the things that were listed have been addressed thoroughly.
4) One of the following will happen after the elves review:
a)If the changes are sufficient, the original owner retains ownership.
b)If the changes aren't sufficient, but obvious effort has been made, the member gets additional time to redo whatever the page may still be lacking.
c) If after the 30 to 60 day window, the page hasn't been touched, it is immediately transferred to the member who initiated contact about the page.

Good idea Matt, but it doesn't take two months to update a page. If the member has held the page for years and is still around (not on some trip) then I see no benefit to this being a drawn out process. I think the rigorous steps you outline would be good to apply if the page was their original work, but if it wasn't, then the process can be abbreviated.

Perhaps that was your original intent. To describe a good process for handling original work. Sounds appropriate to me, though 30 days should be sufficient to start.

by **lcarreau** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:35 pm

Fletch wrote:We should always strive to improve the pages here ...

I think what you guys are forgetting is that some people (out there in computer-land) need a PUSH to get them to respond ... it's the human animal.

It's proven that a 4/10 or 5/10 vote can do this ... at least it got me OFF my ass. (Not that my ass is bigger than anybody else's) .... :shock:

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
mrchad9

by **mrchad9** » Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:51 pm

Thanks Matt. I will use myself as an example too.

The Merced Peakpage is one that got handed to me with 3 others when a previous member vanished. I spent a lot of time updating two of the other pages, but haven't gotten to this one yet and it has been over a month. Hell, it has been over a year.

The page is ok, and it isn't a hugely popular mountain so needn't be at the same standard as West Buttress for example, but if someone came along and wanted to improve it, and had even the slightest evidence that they could do more than just sit on it, I would transfer it in a second. And if I didn't, then it be given to them by someone else. I've had plenty of time and what is there isn't even mine... I have no rights to it just because it is under my profile.

Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Who is online