Fletch wrote:This is amazing... all the ususal suspects on the other side of the fence - Vitaliy defending casual hikers??? Wow. And btw, great post earlier Vitaliy - and Buz, nice comeback as well...

I thought Knoback was a bit much and at times he bordered on being an ass, but he did have great contributions and his leaving is a great loss. As Bob Burd would say, the invisible hand (so to speak) will replace his contributions in time, but there are certain folks on this site that are not replaceable in short order. MoapaPk is one of the most generous and thoughtful people in the forums and I agree with most of what he says. I'm sort of shocked that someone could (or would) take such an opposing and hardline view against him. I respect guys like the Chief and Dow for their contributions as well (and their points of view and experience). And while I would normally take the side of the hikers and weekend warrior types (cause that's what I am - I have a job and a family and a dog and I like beer and football and friends and hobbies just as much as I like the mountains), i'm going to say that this site needs to cater to more climbers. Real climbers.

Us weekend warrior types need to read about exotic places and big walls and high mountain ranges and cold places. That's what motivates us to spend our two weeks of vacation every year on some other continent chasing some experience we cant have in our offices. I'd love to be a climber full time and travel the world. But I didn't invent velcro, I dont have a trust fund, and I cant climb 5.16-whatever. So it's back to the 'ol office for me. But I gotta be honest, if I keep reading front page TR's about Mt Whitney or Longs Peak, im going to stop being a SP member. Once you've read your 50th TR about "wow, Rainier is so much harder than I thought..." I think it's safe to assume, you 'get it.' We need this site to be about something we cant do (or only a few of us can). Otherwise, there is no value-add. Show me something interesting. Show me something out of the box. Show me something that fires me up.

I realize I may be a bit off topic, but I think some of what Knoback was saying is that he's frustrated that SP seems to be becoming a watered-down version of its former self. It's lost a bit of its edge and most of the 'climbers' have moved elsewhere. Since I've been here (which isn't that long, but I've logged in every 1-3 days for the last 3 years), the site's mentality has shifted a bit from climber-types to more of the peak-bagger/trekker types. I'm ok with it, but I think the site needs to cater to more folks who want to push the site to stay edgy. Sorry for the rant.

Between, if you want cool trip reports check out supertopo. One of the people just posted a TR about doing the Nose on El Cap twice in just over 24 hours.
http://www.supertopo.com/tr/Nose-and-Tr ... 1215n.html
this was just posted today
http://www.supertopo.com/tr/Lost-Arrow- ... 1217n.html
nose+lurking fear link up
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... Link-up-TR

And a lot more. Although people point out how big of a zoo supertopo is, it does have a lot more cool TRs and the forums do have a lot more life. More garbage and more useful information. Climbers like less moderation. I saw one member post a little write up with a link to his full TR about how he did a ride from Badwater and hiked to the top of Whitney in a day. I saw Bob S. commented that this type of TR is unacceptable here on SP. He did the same on supertopo, and there was a riot of posts congratulating him and talking about how cool that was. He could have been a good contribution to this site, but something tells me he will not post anything about his trips here again.

Vitaliy M. wrote:I saw one member post a little write up with a link to his full TR about how he did a ride from Badwater and hiked to the top of Whitney in a day. I saw Bob S. commented that this type of TR is unacceptable here on SP. He did the same on supertopo, and there was a riot of posts congratulating him and talking about how cool that was. He could have been a good contribution to this site, but something tells me he will not post anything about his trips here again.

Was it a TR on SuperTopo, or a thread with a link to his full TR? If the fellow had done the same thing here and posted a link to his TR in a new thread I don't think there would have been any opposition.

Here is a site suggestion... perhaps there should be a section at the end of each object submission that is editable by the users. Not all the other sections by the author, just one at the bottom. This would be a bit more integrated into the submission than the comments or corrections (which are not even visible of the main page if it is a route or mountain page). In this section people could post more visible comments, corrections, or links to their external TRs.

mrchad9 wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:I saw one member post a little write up with a link to his full TR about how he did a ride from Badwater and hiked to the top of Whitney in a day. I saw Bob S. commented that this type of TR is unacceptable here on SP. He did the same on supertopo, and there was a riot of posts congratulating him and talking about how cool that was. He could have been a good contribution to this site, but something tells me he will not post anything about his trips here again.

Was it a TR on SuperTopo, or a thread with a link to his full TR? If the fellow had done the same thing here and posted a link to his TR in a new thread I don't think there would have been any opposition.

It was not posted in the forum, where there would have been no issue. Instead, it was posted as a TR, with one or two sentences and a link to an off-site TR. He was asked to post it in the forum instead. There was no response, and the "page" was deleted.

Similarly, we delete "trip reports" that consist of "Check out my YouTube video" and a link to the video. Such submissions belong in the forums, not as SP content pages.

Yes, that is correct. He did the same on ST but membership of that site really responded to the content in his link, instead of deleting it. Not at all saying you should allow people to post links to their TRs all the time. But as Fletch said to bring more good content in, you have to cater to people that do climb cool stuff, and have ambitions. Maybe this time you could have welcomed him to the site and encouraged to post it as a TR or post things as an actual TR in the future. Or you will have what you have..100 whitney trail and disappointment cleaver TRs, and no Nose in a day types. Of course it is acceptable to have those, and every TR is an experience, but not as interesting as something unique.
By the way that individual summited Denali (from 14K camp) 4 days after landing on the air strip. Very strong climber. I had a chance to climb with him this summer and learned a lot.

mrchad9 wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:I saw one member post a little write up with a link to his full TR about how he did a ride from Badwater and hiked to the top of Whitney in a day. I saw Bob S. commented that this type of TR is unacceptable here on SP. He did the same on supertopo, and there was a riot of posts congratulating him and talking about how cool that was. He could have been a good contribution to this site, but something tells me he will not post anything about his trips here again.

Was it a TR on SuperTopo, or a thread with a link to his full TR? If the fellow had done the same thing here and posted a link to his TR in a new thread I don't think there would have been any opposition.

Here is a site suggestion... perhaps there should be a section at the end of each object submission that is editable by the users. Not all the other sections by the author, just one at the bottom. This would be a bit more integrated into the submission than the comments or corrections (which are not even visible of the main page if it is a route or mountain page). In this section people could post more visible comments, corrections, or links to their external TRs.

It would be good to have the "corrections" appear as a mandatory section right at the end of the page, also referenced in the outline at top. I've tried to incorporate corrections in my reports, and it gets awkward at time-- they don't always fit best at the end. Maybe this could be done with coding sleight-of-hand, so people can still type in a corrections section, and have it show up automatically on the page. Some discipline would be required by the elves, to distinguish corrections from nasty gripes.

But I always look for a corrections section when I'm really searching out peak info... so I wonder if we are we just trying to catch the attention of folks with ADHD?

Vitaliy M. wrote:I can live with you thinking I am a 'condescending dick,' it does not bother me. Although, I hope you change your opinion some day.

If you don't want people to think you are a "condescending dick" don't act like one. You posted an assinine condescending comment to one of my photos - why would I not think you are a "condescending dick"?

Vitaliy M. wrote:Yes, that is correct. He did the same on ST but membership of that site really responded to the content in his link, instead of deleting it. Not at all saying you should allow people to post links to their TRs all the time. But as Fletch said to bring more good content in, you have to cater to people that do climb cool stuff, and have ambitions. Maybe this time you could have welcomed him to the site and encouraged to post it as a TR or post things as an actual TR in the future. Or you will have what you have..100 whitney trail and disappointment cleaver TRs, and no Nose in a day types. Of course it is acceptable to have those, and every TR is an experience, but not as interesting as something unique.
By the way that individual summited Denali (from 14K camp) 4 days after landing on the air strip. Very strong climber. I had a chance to climb with him this summer and learned a lot.

ST is organized very differently from SummitPost. You know that. I don't feel like going around and around about this, so you can have the last say. You seem to be looking past the fact that I did try communicating to the member. I explained the site policy, encouraged him to post his link in the forum, and said it was no reflection on the quality of the trip report itself. Site policy that SoCal and I follow is usually to try contacting the submitter of a weak or inappropriate page and then give time for a response. Only in hopeless cases do we just delete outright. Since I never heard back from the guy after a few days, I deleted the report. It's also the responsibility of the submitter to see what site expectations are and not entirely up to site management. It isn't that hard to do, which is why a lot of members get really frustrated with bad submissions. Some get it right away, others learn, some never seem to get it, and some seem to get it but can't be bothered to make the effort.

We delete bad hiking pages and bad climbing pages alike. You seem to be suggesting that better climbers should get some kind of pass when it comes to submission standards. Others would argue that people of all ability levels ought to follow the same standards or contribute their experience and knowledge in the forums. Just because you liked the subject of that trip report doesn't mean it should be an exception. I thought the trip report, the off-site one, was good as well. Unfortunately, the member didn't respond.

You want more climbers here? Then make it easier to contribute content. I have tried to do my part on this with the Bulk Uploader (and got the bruises on my ass to prove it). About 3 years ago I recognized that the site needs to keep up with the norms for putting things on the web...it shouldn't be harder to operate here than it is on Flickr, Facebook, wherever.

That was one idea I had. And I was amazed at how many people disagreed with me. At least one of the highly respected former climbing contributors here completely disagreed. (haha, I was picturing him as my target audience as I wrote the code, so funny how life works ).

My other big idea is that page ownership is a fetish that "real" climbers don't have time to indulge. They just want information, the more recent and specific the better. Therefore I kept bringing up wiki-like ideas and was strongly voted down. I don't know about a wiki, but something like you see a list of the things people did in an area in the last week, linked to route pages. Lots of sites do this now. Summitpost doesn't. (Don't tell me to scroll the summit logs, I tried that with an open mind already).

So I still hang around because, well, I *like* the place. Met some cool people here. And I like the idea of one site for the world. But for climbing content now I use a variety of local sites in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. They have a lower barrier to add content, and hell, I guess people like posting stuff in their native language (damn furriners :p).

The number of technical climbers here was always small. I'm glad to hear that they were/are appreciated for the wet hemp rope smell they bring to a room (ha). My feeling is they are shying away from this place too. I've seen it happen a few times that an amazing climber with massive accomplishments comes in and makes a crappy page. They get a bevy of helpful suggestions that just look like a hell of a lot of work and disappear. The big problem is that the work of adding routes is just too close to duplicating guidebook data, which most climbers still have to buy or borrow anyway for the region they live in (okay not Dow's Canada).

So you want climbers to hang out here but you don't really want to make changes to make it possible. If you make it easier to add images you fear the dreaded flower and kitten pictures. If you make pages more collaborative you bristle and assert the importance of ownership.

It also strikes me that the site is both super open in terms of what you can use it for (not necessarily bad), but also frustratingly rigid in terms of future change/features. People sense that there isn't a living vision behind where it should go.

And this is true! The site owner is long retired from thought-duty. The Elves are highly competent but by definition conservative. The programmer is overworked and unpaid.

To the extent that a new generation can come and use this infrastructure and be happy and creative with it, the site will retain the vibrancy it needs to keep these back room grumblings from showing up on the front page. Note also that technical climbers didn't start that way on day one. I'm thinking of at least one guy in the PNW who can put up with the infrastructure for adding content, and is going out on gradually more technical trips. You never know where that ends up.

Peace,
--m

Bob Sihler wrote:ST is organized very differently from SummitPost...

This hits the nail on the head. Maybe my problem is I'm always trying to turn it into something I *think* it should be. I'm like Tommy Boy, with a "pretty little pet." I MASSAGE IT...I PET IT...YOU'RE NAUGHTY! MY NAUGHTY PET!

Okay maybe only I found that funny...

MVS-- I'd go for the idea of bulk uploading if it could be relegated just to mountains, routes, trip reports, etc. Or in other words, not for albums and not for just general use. That, in many people's opinions, is how the bulk uploader has been abused.

Still against wiki-style, but the ideas from mrchad9 and MoapaPk about a highly visible corrections section are good ones.

Regarding other changes, you know, of course, that the elves can do little. But we do listen to members and try to adapt as we can to the members' preferences and interests. For example, referring to the other discussion here about a trip report that was deleted because it was just a link to another site, that kind of submission, as well as the reports that are nothing but a YouTube video, have never gone over very well here; they get few votes and are often reported as bad submissions, which is why they are discouraged and usually deleted. If, however, members started expressing a widespread tolerance for or interest in them, then we would go with the changing preferences unless the site owners appeared and told us not to.

Constructive feedback and suggestions are welcome, and to the degree that we can act on them, we will try. Individual preferences are impossible to accommodate (see the debate over what kinds of pages should be featured or what kinds of route pages allowed), but as a consensus develops, it's easier to act.

Bob Sihler wrote:Still against wiki-style, but the ideas from mrchad9 and MoapaPk about a highly visible corrections section are good ones.

I think some type of peer contribution for route/mountain pages would be a good thing.

mvs wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:ST is organized very differently from SummitPost...

This hits the nail on the head. Maybe my problem is I'm always trying to turn it into something I *think* it should be. I'm like Tommy Boy, with a "pretty little pet." I MASSAGE IT...I PET IT...YOU'RE NAUGHTY! MY NAUGHTY PET!

Okay maybe only I found that funny...

No - I found it pretty damn funny also ...

Bob Sihler wrote:MVS-- I'd go for the idea of bulk uploading if it could be relegated just to mountains, routes, trip reports, etc. Or in other words, not for albums and not for just general use. That, in many people's opinions, is how the bulk uploader has been abused.

I actually never heard this suggestion before, but I would be willing to implement it in future versions. That is, you can only upload to one of those parent types. But Matt would have to work on the main codebase to prevent transfer of images into those undesirable categories.

Over and over again I hear how bad albums are. Why not just get rid of this category (or just prevent new albums)?

And I don't mean to minimize the Elvish reach and power in terms of making policy changes. For every thread like this one, pining for tech-climber-friendly policy, there are several arguing in the opposite direction, and you have to deal with them all.

I'm just kvetching and don't claim to have said anything productive. But I will follow up on the bulk uploader idea you mentioned if people here feel good about that. Again though, all I can affect is the initial upload, and if a determined flower poster was skilled enough to find and run my tool, they probably know how to transfer objects

ExcitableBoy wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:Still against wiki-style, but the ideas from mrchad9 and MoapaPk about a highly visible corrections section are good ones.

I think some type of peer contribution for route/mountain pages would be a good thing.

It would work like this. A climber makes a basic page, as rich as a Gangolf page or somewhat poorer. Any registered user can edit it. Full history is preserved. The owner can revert edits and has the right to report offenders to the elves. If his creation is subject to abuse he can give up with the wiki approach and revert to the standard authentication system.

This allows for useful updates by parties who were just in there last weekend. It allows contribution from people who just want to put the basics up (quickly), and for those who put many hours of effort in. You could imagine an ecosystem of "pioneer" page authors, followed by consolidators and systemizers. And it's iterative: the pioneer returns and adds curt but useful comments in relevant sections of the page.

It's built more on trust and the idea of a shared goal, less on ownership.

Buz Groshong wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:I can live with you thinking I am a 'condescending dick,' it does not bother me. Although, I hope you change your opinion some day.

If you don't want people to think you are a "condescending dick" don't act like one. You posted an assinine condescending comment to one of my photos - why would I not think you are a "condescending dick"?

I do not appreciate your smart ass comments in the forums neither. Which comment of mine are you talking about? Can you link it please.