mrchad9 wrote:My suggestion is clear and consistent. If you adopt a page, update it. If you take a year and someone qualified asks for it, don't expect to keep it for very long.

Same as Matt originally suggested.

Not even a year-- that is too long.

My suggestion is clear and consistent, too-- begin the new policy from today. To me, that is a fair line in the sand.

What you've described about adoption is the status quo, so not do nothing but rather change nothing. Point taken.

Well, with you edit now you are agreeing with me, so I can't even tell what your position is. That is what I meant by throwing a wrench into everything.

I don't think most of those links were real issues, just suggestions for minor site improvements. The complex issues are the things like page adoption, voting mechanism, current conditions or god forbid wiki comments, etc... That is where we need ideas, not just pointing out the problems.

Adopting pages already abandoned, like those 11, isn't a problem so that isn't the type of thing we are talking about.

But I think the folks who take those pages better improve them, if they are going to sit on them indefinitely without making them better then they should be ok with someone else taking them with limited notice if that situation arises. I'm not sure why this is such a contentious idea. Why penalize the ambitious person in the future just because they weren't around when you were handing out pages today? To me that is just unacceptable. We need to encourage contributions, not collecting things. And encourage those putting forth the effort on their own too, rather than those doing it just because they might lose the trophy they snagged.

Oh he'll I don't even know what we are talking about anymore. A more sensible conclusion would have been easily reached with a quick phone call.

Where is my Glenlivet?

Well, with you edit now you are agreeing with me, so I can't even tell what your position is. That is what I meant by throwing a wrench into everything.

My position is what Matt just said:

As much as I hate to admit it, because I think it will hinder forward progress of the site in the short term, I think that Bob and Scott both have a valid point here. Previously there was no policy for adopted pages. It would be unfair to retroactively impose such a policy on adopted pages. People should be given fair warning before having to give up pages they've adopted. We can implement the new policy, starting today, and move forward with it in place. But applying it retroactively doesn't seem like a good idea.

Also, I did state a solution:

Just make it a rule that everyone knows about. Perhaps in the adoption forum that was proposed. I think it would help to come up with and let everyone know of some rules for adopting a page.

I do propose solutions; you just choose to ignore them. This one seems a simple fix.

I don't care what the policy was in the past, I care what it is today. I'm hearing that if you have a page today you need to maintain it. If you don't, and you don't have significant content on it, you might not keep it.

Either the policy is in place, or it isn't.

Lagavulin 16

mrchad9 wrote:...they should be ok with someone else taking them with limited notice if that situation arises. I'm not sure why this is such a contentious idea...

I think this is the crux, so to speak, of the discussion. Scott and I think there should be notice and time given, and you are inclined to be less lenient. I don't think anyone feels that there should be no standards or time limits. On a website where no one is paying to join or paying to contribute, I believe that we should establish and enforce standards but at the same time give the people who are freely contributing their time and knowledge to get the job done.

Lord knows I've nuked enough pages in the last few years-- probably close to a thousand-- so I'm not some squishy guy.

Let's just make a clear policy, hit Reset, and go; is that unfair or too much to ask?

Montana Matt wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Where is my Glenlivet?

I prefer Glenmorrangie. Nector D'Or is my favorite Scotch. Angel's Envy for bourbon. And Red Breast for Irish whiskey.

MacAllan 18-- wow. Elves need better pay for the next level, which is equal to a lot of people's monthly house payment.

I just think a policy that shifts more burden to folks contributing and away from folks who didn't is not a good one. If your content isn't on a page then you didn't contribute. No need to ease your burden.

If you don't agree Bob and Scott then maybe let Lemke and Josh chime in. We are in areas where there are especially old pages that occasionally get adopted and there are also a few new folks looking to improve. You want to facilitate new members and growth do we not? People need a change to get 'good' mountains, and make their quality fantastic. Not everyone likes to focus on the less traveled areas as much as others where no one has submitted a page, nor should they.

I just think a policy that shifts more burden to folks contributing and away from folks who didn't is not a good one. If your content isn't on a page then you didn't contribute. No need to ease your burden.

If you don't agree Bob and Scott then maybe let Lemke and Josh chime in. We are in areas where there are especially old pages that occasionally get adopted and there are also a few new folks looking to improve. You want to facilitate new members and growth do we not? People need a change to get 'good' mountains, and make their quality fantastic. Not everyone likes to focus on the less traveled areas as much as others where no one has submitted a page, nor should they.

Then such a policy should be written and then implemented. My solution is that we should work together on a clear written policy/criteria for page adoption, (and as soon as possible) leave it as a sticky at the top of an adoption forum. People will ideally post adoption request (both to adopt and give their pages up for adoption).

Basic criteria of the policy is that one should have planned improvements for the page, etc.

As for the Avalanche Gulch page, to me it looks like the page is actually coming along quite nicely:

http://www.summitpost.org/avalanche-gulch/155406

Of course there are other pages that need work, but for this one at least, it seems as if the maintainer did get the message and is making efforts to improve the page.

mrchad9 wrote:If you don't agree Bob and Scott then maybe let Lemke and Josh chime in.

Who's stopping them?

Not everyone likes to focus on the less traveled areas as much as others where no one has submitted a page, nor should they.

Yes, Scott and I have an affinity for the blank spots, and that makes both of us irritated when we see proposals for page scores based upon hits, because we sometimes put in way more effort on an obscure peak than someone else does for a trophy peak. Quite frankly, I would not go to SP for info about Shasta since it can be found all over, but I would go to SP for beta about some obscure peak in Montana or a slot in Utah.

Because SP does not have a balancing mechanism that scores great pages for obscure peaks the way that the pages for trophy peaks get votes-- and some of the biggest trophy peak pages on SP are owned by people who have not climbed those peaks...lol...-- there is a disincentive to post info on obscure peaks. All there is is a downside-- attracting those who never would have bothered.

I could write one hell of a page for K2, but I wouldn't dare for shame.

Still, SP members will continue to stumble over each other and post pathetic praise over stolen images photoshopped onto other stolen images, and those pictures will make the front page, with due comments from the other savants who post their carefully recycled picture series.

For shame.

Maybe Chad is right. Maybe what we need is a wrecking ball.

The Avalanche Gulch page is primarily an incorporation of the other posts that other users had made onto the page brought into the main page, with very limited actual content from the current owner (who is your buddy by the way... that hasn't slipped me).

And I do acknowledge that you, Scott, in particular, made this as unpleasant an experience as any I have had on this site for some time. And that is saying a lot. And you were similarly difficult in the voting system discussion, more so than anyone else on the site as I've already discussed with you (and you still have yet to propose an actual improvement), but more so here. And I will remember that for a long time.

As for the rest, I was talking to Matt, not you.

All I tried to do here was make a great page for this site, and lots of elves immediately jumped in to put up obstacles, and now we have a not as good page (but good enough for Scott who will never even visit the mountain) as the end result. But I'll be there many more times. You don't see me pushing around the areas and pages you are more familiar with do you? What you did today did not make this site better.

As far as written guidelines, and the implication that it is some sort of construction that need rigorously be followed. No. Whenever I am involved the quality of the existing page will be considered, the ability of the existing owner to live up to the appropriate expectations, the quality of the prospective owner's work will be considered, and their history with following through will be considered. Sometimes that slants in the current owners favor and sometimes against them. It isn't black and white any more than the mods deciding on what posts stay and what get deleted. That is where I land. If others handle things with blinders on, that is up to them.

And Bob, I respect much of what you have done here... but I never suggested anything close to a wrecking ball. I said if you didn't build a page you shouldn't have rights to it. BIG difference. You are intentionally distorting my comments just as Scott distorted my ideas when we were discussing a dynamic section for open user additions. You didn't see me intentionally distorting your views. And you are the only one that played the 'it needs to be this way or I'm leaving' card. My opinion of your approach has changed. Just not good form I think.

Goodnight.

Fletch wrote:I think the crux of the whole issue is how to make the content better and how to impliment an idiot proof way to police that without this place turning into Josh's, Scott's, and Dow's content playground...

But Fletch... I want to have my own playground..... waaaaaaaaaaaa... (in all seriousness SP should not turn into JLew's playground)

This is part of the price of private content. We have to choose between "property and quality" here. Just like how government has to choose between "freedom and public stability". So if the elves are to government, we have to consider what we value more. Our content? Our members? In a world where we cannot have both... or can we? Chad and I believe that anyone not willing to place quality beta on important pieces (pages) are standing in the way of what SP is meant to be. Unfortunately with a standard comes it's price. My brother is a great example of someone who considers making pages but hesitates due to this arising standard. This is one reason why I'm not so keen on the burden being placed on one individual.

Regardless to what the standard is, this should not stop folks from posting trip reports, albums, articles, photos, custom objects, or with some creativity figure out other ways to contribute. And for the less known places the burden isn't as high considering that few folks are relying on it. But the few that do need you all the more to do a good job!

Now rather than the idea earlier mentioned about "only folks who climbed it can vote it", instead why not have something like "how accurate was this page?". This would give the viewer a idea of how accurate the information is assuming people vote accordingly after climbing that peak.

and some of the biggest trophy peak pages on SP are owned by people who have not climbed those peaks...lol..

Yeah, it's LOL when person who owns the page has not climbed the peak. After climbing a route recently I noticed that page owner has a bunch of wrong information about the route. Than I read his TR and realized he has bypassed majority of the route...why even make a page..I guess for LULZ

Bob Sihler wrote:Do you mean my preference that the interested party contacts the page owner first? If so, I stand by that because I think it's better for members to work with each other before calling in the referees.

I completely agree with this statement. While this will significantly reduce the chances of the page going to a new owner, I believe people should be warned before action takes place. This way folks will have a chance to redeem themselves. They might not do as good of a job as you were going to. But if they make a real effort into the page, already you have pushed them in the right direction have you not? Here's how I define the standard of page creation: if folks don't need to look else where, then the standard is met. The moment folks need to check other sites (aside from the links provided on the content page) for there info is the moment the page is below SP standard. I'm not saying the page needs to be the best Coleman Deming page when I view it. But it better give me the directions to the trailhead, a decent description of the route, and give me an idea of what I need for the climb (this includes gear, experience, and dealing with the crux). The elves know full well what a good page looks like. I admit I throw in extras on my pages that are not part of SP standards. But that's what gives them flavor.

I like a lot of what Chad has said in this thread. He's trying to fight for the quality of content here. I'm not trying to compromise between what Bob and Chad have said. To sum it up what I think needs to be done is to give people a chance when requested to fix up there pages. If they don't comply, well that's when Chad's ideas come in full blazes. If they only do a half decent job, perhaps us elves could encourage that member telling them exactly what is lacking. And not in some rude fashion, but with a friendly tone. And if they are 75% there (if there is such a thing) perhaps mention to that owner that a certain member is willing to be an admin and add on to that page.

Bob Sihler wrote:Maybe Chad is right. Maybe what we need is a wrecking ball.

Oh Bob, I'm sure we would get along very well in person. I'm usually loaded with jokes. At the very least a sense of humor.





Keep in mind, I personally don't like dealing with "good enough". I always love pushing higher when ever possible.