Steve Gruhn wrote:It might even make sense to split up Alaska and Canada into two separate forums. Their combined geographic area is about double that of the Lower 48. So, someone interested in climbs in Labrador is forced to sift through a lot of information about climbs and routes that aren't within 4000 miles of his area of interest.

I don't see how someone in Alaska or Canada is sifting though more information. California has 1382 mountains with content on SP, and in contrast there are only 537 pages on peaks in Alaska or Canada. In the forums, the California forum has 30 pages, while this one has only 4.

Doesn't seem like too much of a burden to sift through the AK/Canada info IMHO.

But presumably those interested in California peaks would have an interest in all of the pages through which they are sifting because the information is relatively close geographically to their area of interest. That is not the case with the Alaska and Canada pages. While there might be fewer people in that vast combined area (and consequently fewer pages), to group forum posts about Labrador with posts about Denali or the Canadian Rockies doesn't really serve the end user all that well. Would it really be all that difficult to break out Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta from the rest of Canada?

Steve Gruhn wrote:Would it really be all that difficult to break out Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta from the rest of Canada?

Probably. We can't even get those running the site to create forums specifically for Plans and Partners.

mrchad9 wrote:I don't see how someone in Alaska or Canada is sifting though more information. California has 1382 mountains with content on SP, and in contrast there are only 537 pages on peaks in Alaska or Canada. In the forums, the California forum has 30 pages, while this one has only 4.
Doesn't seem like too much of a burden to sift through the AK/Canada info IMHO.

I think you''re on to something, Chad. After Alaska secedes, we can do a little consolidation with the other groupings, since you Californians don't mind clicking through a few extra pages

The Land of Armed Christians will have to come to our country to get their birth control pills.

Won't need em
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/127242.php

That map of gray, those are the states that truly built this country (not including Alaska) and those are the states that today keep America growing. Maybe from about north of Sacramento, California could be included also. (wink)

Marmaduke wrote:That map of gray, those are the states that truly built this country (not including Alaska) and those are the states that today keep America growing. Maybe from about north of Sacramento, California could be included also. (wink)

Why do Republicans hate women?

I think that we owe Scott a some respect for his good intentions with this thread. The BS should be left out, as is stated in the "what's new in Calif" thread, Please stay on topic. Would it be too much as to have the Mods delete the frivolous stuff in this thread?

edit- they/we don't Chad.

It's kind of difficult to imagine how the U.S. was built without New England, New York, and Pennsylvania. What's the first word in the name of our nation? Oh, yeah, "United." Each state plays an important, but different role in our nation. We don't need to parse our nation into red states and blue states or important ones and unimportant ones. The summitpost forum, however, could use some parsing to make it more useful.

Alaska and Canada have some 4,500,000 square miles (that's about 47% of all of North America). California, on the other hand, has 160,000 square miles (that's less than 2% of North America). And thinking of summits, there are dozens of mountain ranges in the combined Alaska/Canada region. California really has only a handful (Sierra Nevada, Cascades). British Columbia probably has the greatest density of mountains on the continent, yet it's lumped together with other vast mountainous regions. Consequently, the Alaska/Canada user continually faces posts about topics not even within the same mountain range as his area of interest and often thousands of miles distant. It really would make sense to have four separate pages - Alaska, British Columbia (or BC and the Yukon Territory), Alberta, and the rest of Canada.

Conservatives and rednecks (is that redundant?) are always trying to split up this country, going back to 1860. Yet they claim to be patriotic. Their hypocrisy is infinite.

Steve Gruhn wrote:The summitpost forum, however, could use some parsing to make it more useful.

Alaska and Canada have some 4,500,000 square miles (that's about 47% of all of North America). California, on the other hand, has 160,000 square miles (that's less than 2% of North America). And thinking of summits, there are dozens of mountain ranges in the combined Alaska/Canada region. California really has only a handful (Sierra Nevada, Cascades). British Columbia probably has the greatest density of mountains on the continent, yet it's lumped together with other vast mountainous regions. Consequently, the Alaska/Canada user continually faces posts about topics not even within the same mountain range as his area of interest and often thousands of miles distant. It really would make sense to have four separate pages - Alaska, British Columbia (or BC and the Yukon Territory), Alberta, and the rest of Canada.

Or, to keep from increasing the number of forums too much, how about:
--Pacific Northwest and Western Canada
--Eastern US and Eastern Canada
--Alaska

There's a lot of crossover hiking/climbing traffic between the PNW and BC, and between NY/New England and Quebec etc. That is, Montrealers pop down to the Gunks, and Seattleites spend weekends in BC quite a bit. Between Alaska and Canada, not so much. Likewise, not so much between Eastern and Western Canada.