Baarb wrote:I'll be honest and say I haven't read all the posts on here and am sure also no-one cares about my opinion.

So you are a lazy guy and you're an honest guy. OK with me, then. Despite the former and thanks to the latter, there's at least one other guy who cares.

Baarb wrote:For me leaving things as they are makes the most sense and If someone comes along and actually climbs the thing then let them take the existing page over and improve it.

The problem is there exists an SP rule that allows the owner to keep the page.

FortMental wrote:I use this site like I used to use the mountaineering section of the bookstore when I was a kid: poring over the pictures in books I couldn't afford, socking away inspiration and ideas for my next adventure.

+ 1

Funny, I did the same thing as a kid...and I come to SP for inspiration as well (and information when I'm ready to start planning my trip).

Fred Spicker wrote:...I really don’t want to own another major mountain page

Nor do I

Fred Spicker wrote:if one is serious about them, they take a lot of effort to keep current – but I have asked for the route page. Let’s see what happens.

I've seen tens of pages maintained by hikers that are very far from being able to climb mountains and routes they own
One of them, regarding a big route in M.Blanc group, had a comment made by a member who climbed it, but the comment has been rejected "according" to what one (each one) can find on a (quoted) book
I've tried, in the past, to coax them to share or, better, give the page mainainance to people that are more qualified (according to SP rules I learned when I became a member) but my invitations were always sunken in the crevasses of their point-hunger ...
what can we do ?
I don't want to make a list ...

I find myself agreeing with FortMental more than I agree with Bob. Sure, it is preferable to have someone who has climbed the mountain and is intimately familliar with it as the page owner, but I think we should also have some pages for mountains no one here has climbed. If it's just about the climbing information, then get rid of the albums. Also get rid of the pages that don't add climbing information not found elsewhere. Some of us do want it to be a "mountain encyclopedia," and we've been around since the SP1 days. Someone said we've got someone who has climbed K2; I haven't seen anyone sign the summit log for Taulliraju and I'm sure nobody here has climbed Chacraraju, but we have got some great pictures of both and should have pages for both.

Don't take this as an attack, Bob, but you need to take a closer look at your Knob Mountain and Buck Ridge pages. I found both trails in guidebooks and on maps long before SummitPost existed and don't see any unique, valuable information on either of the pages, but I do think they are good pages and do belong here.

There are lots of pages for other mountains around here that were made by someone who climbed them once and is good at building pages, but they sure don't contain a wealth of special information; not that there necessarily is any that could be included. If we need a rule that says you must have climbed it, maybe we need a rule that says you must have climbed it at least a dozen times and in every season, after all you can't be but so familiar with it if you've only climbed it once.

How about a compromise like this?

FortMental wrote:I don't think having climbed a route on a mountain is qualification for assembling a "Mountain Page" any more than throwing a football qualifies you to write a sports column; of course, there's a limit to allowable ignorance. The mountain page, in my esteemed and gloriously important opinion, should be an "edited by" page, in which facts, figures, details, reviews, links, and tid bits are assembled for the viewers convenient use.

OK plus

Baarb wrote:For me leaving things as they are makes the most sense and If someone comes along and actually climbs the thing then let them take the existing page over…

Plus a "standard note" stating that the writer hasn't climbed the peak and will be on cloud nine to share this page with the first SP'er who reaches the summit and thus becomes the "owner" whereas the current owner turns him/herself into the "admin".

Finally, ask all the current owners of such pages to copy and paste the note at the top of the page.

Fletch,
Personally, I'd rather it'd been quicker too, but I've learnt a few things as well as having achieved my personal goals (if you felt like having them listed, just PM me ) . As to the major problem, I think, yes what I wrote in the post before is very near to what you put down in your first post here, items 1 and 4:

Fletch wrote:I think its fine to post a page about a mountain you have never climbed as long as you follow these rules:
1) State clearly in the intro that you have not climbed the mountain
4) As soon as someone signs your climbers log, contact them to ask for more input and/or to co-author your page.

What I think is different is that I'd like a rule and a "standard note" which first could be written into the FAQ, then advertised on the Forum, then copied from the FAQ by all of those who can hear what they listen to, then pasted at the top of all of such pages.

Fletch wrote:See page one of this saga, post #2. Right after your OP.

Only took us 11 pages of rambling to come back to where it all began.

That's typical for an internet discussion, isn't it?

One of the problems in this thread and in most others is that people voice their opinion without having read the other posts. Posting without thinking is generally not very productive.

Bob Sihler wrote:Here is a case in point. As far as I can tell, the author has never been there. Only two pictures on the page were posted by the author, and they are by somebody else. The author admits on the page that most of the information came from other sources. This is how we want a world-famous peak represented on SP?

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/152103/cerro-torre.html

But maybe we do. Look at all the votes...

IMO Such a page should be much more like e.g. this one

yatsek wrote:How about a compromise like this?

FortMental wrote:I don't think having climbed a route on a mountain is qualification for assembling a "Mountain Page" any more than throwing a football qualifies you to write a sports column; of course, there's a limit to allowable ignorance. The mountain page, in my esteemed and gloriously important opinion, should be an "edited by" page, in which facts, figures, details, reviews, links, and tid bits are assembled for the viewers convenient use.

OK plus

Baarb wrote:For me leaving things as they are makes the most sense and If someone comes along and actually climbs the thing then let them take the existing page over…

Plus a "standard note" stating that the writer hasn't climbed the peak and will be on cloud nine to share this page with the first SP'er who reaches the summit and thus becomes the "owner" whereas the current owner turns him/herself into the "admin".
Finally, ask all the current owners of such pages to copy and paste the note at the top of the page.

And what about the page that was posted by someone who read about the mountain in a guide book and went out and climbed it one time; do they need to post a similar note in case someone has done it many times and is far more familiar with it?

Buz Groshong wrote:And what about the page that was posted by someone who read about the mountain in a guide book and went out and climbed it one time; do they need to post a similar note in case someone has done it many times and is far more familiar with it?

No way. The fewer rules, the better for the game.

Just to echo Tazz's post with a side comment...

First hand and subjective beta is really nice. It's actually better to read a story from a point of view that may be more or less skilled than your own when you are concerned about the "cruxes" of a route. Assuming you can gauge the skill level, it can be comforting or alarming to read that the author found the sequence easy or hard, and micro-commentary about the protection, dampness, objective hazard, what-have-you are often much better than some dry prose written in a "guidebook style" by an ambitious mountain page developer.

I know I'm repeating myself to suggest that when climbing a technical route most climbers are likely to already have the appropriate guidebooks, and not likely to rely on summitpost mountain pages. For me those pages are either for general inspiration or suitable for choosing hiking goals. In Europe I have to say that the Area pages are simply incredible, as they provide a level of detail with inspiring pictures not usually found in guidebooks. As for Area pages, I don't care too much if the author spent every weekend there (yes, that would be nice), but rather I admit that his love for the area can transcend any geographical distance from it.

Tazz mentioned that folks are looking for current mountain information, and that is an area that I feel Summitpost really falls down. Maybe because we (I know I'm guilty of this) put too much effort into Trip Reports, waiting until all the pictures are scanned and stitched, etc. But unfortunately when planning a trip I spend a lot more time parsing various bulletin boards for current conditions than prowling SP. I wish that weren't the case, especially because these boards are so varied (several different languages) around the Alps.

Thx for opportunity to comment!

ps - I left out a really practical reason why Area pages are so useful for me. When chosing a place to go for the weekend, I have to content with different weather patterns. Often the first job is to chose a general area based on where the weather is sunny. With many subranges, there is nothing like browsing the area page to find all the huts, principle peaks, notes about climate and possibilities. The Mountain Page is the next step, though if I've chosen a technical route a rush to the bookshelf or the club library is likely to follow...

pps - anybody who read my report about an accident on the Langkofeleck in August is unlikely to underestimate the dripping chimney crux! Though I certainly should have payed better attention, the necessarily terse and objective guidebook prose of "may be damp or icy" was underwhelming. Of course a well-written mountain or route page could highlight this kind of thing really well...after all we have JavaScript with flashing red letters.

tazz wrote:IMO I think Trs should have more weight than they do. It is current first hand beta and info plus a story to add to the pleasure of reading...

I've no idea at all (been here for 2 years) what the weight of each page type is, but I think the best beta should be both sought and found on the Route page rather than in a TR. I guess some of the TR's are so much appreciated because – apart from good/sufficient (I hope) beta - the writer has the flair for telling tales, but this may go hand in hand with a tendency towards tall tales, fantasy, ignoring details, lack of precision, etc.