Wheat v. Chaff?

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:01 pm

mvs wrote:
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.

That sounds worth trying, much better than the free-for-all wiki approach people sometimes seem to advocate. In my case, I would be less concerned about someone updating information and more concerned about someone altering or deleting my Overview; I often put a lot of effort into the Overview in order to bring the mountain to life, so to speak, and some of me goes into that. Leave my Overview alone and give me the ability to undo changes that are bad or incorrect, and I'd give it a try.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
yatsek

by **ExcitableBoy** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:02 pm

mvs wrote:
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.

I completely agree. I put up some pages on routes that I though were important yet don't, and never have had, much of a photogrpahic record. Allowing future contributors to improve on the foundation would make for richer pages.

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:07 pm

mvs wrote:
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)?

1. Probably a pain for Matt, but even without doing that, I think it would at least be a deterrent from adding clutter. How hard do people want to work to add junk?

2. I've been a broken record on this in the past, but I think getting rid of albums and getting rid of the POTD/POTW display would do marvels for reducing site clutter and improving overall quality of submissions. And it might bring back a few people who got sick of the off-topic material gaining such prominence. On the other hand, some people do make some very nice, and even informative, albums, and the argument would be that banning albums would be unfair to them. I, though, would happily delete the albums I have made. Recently, I gave away several that I did not want anymore and would not make now. The only reason I didn't delete them was that I knew there were links to some of them on other people's pages, so I didn't want to mess up those people's work.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
anita

by **mrchad9** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:09 pm

My suggestion was less complicated from the above IMHO (from an implementation standpoint). The objective being to keep it as simple as possible in hopes of it being done as soon as possible.

Currently when creating a page the author can create 1, 2, 3, etc... sections for the content. The website automatically adds one last section for images... it isn't up to the page creator. My thought is just between this and the author created sections there be one more section, for SP community contributions and additions to the page. This makes it immediately visible to all who look at or print the page, without clicking any other correction links.

For all the memebers they would see the 'edit page' option at the top just like the author, except when they click it they only have the option for the one section that is for all members. The author can edit that section too... thus allowing him to delete something if he choses to incorporate it into his writeup.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Bob Sihler, dadndave

by **Vitaliy M.** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:10 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:
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 are right, both sites are different. Both have own disadvantages. I was trying to come up with a reason why ST attracts such a big number of members who submit really cool TRs constantly....

By the way, ExcitableBoy submitted a very good page on winter climbs in Cascades. I really liked it.

by **mvs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:31 pm

mrchad9 wrote:My suggestion was less complicated from the above IMHO (from an implementation standpoint). The objective being to keep it as simple as possible in hopes of it being done as soon as possible.

This is highly practical.

mrchad9 wrote:Currently when creating a page the author can create 1, 2, 3, etc... sections for the content. The website automatically adds one last section for images... it isn't up to the page creator. My thought is just between this and the author created sections there be one more section, for SP community contributions and additions to the page. This makes it immediately visible to all who look at or print the page, without clicking any other correction links.

For all the memebers they would see the 'edit page' option at the top just like the author, except when they click it they only have the option for the one section that is for all members. The author can edit that section too... thus allowing him to delete something if he choses to incorporate it into his writeup.

Let me try blending two ideas in my response. Bob noted that certain sections should be more protected than others, like the Overview. I agree with him, because the Overview is where you really wrestle with words trying to convey the significance of the peak, express why it's something to admire, and entice readers to keep going. Appropriately, more sweat and tears go into that section than any others.

I would say a new check box appears at the top of each section in the edit page view, giving the author a chance to "lock down" a section as Private or Public. Private means that section can only be edited by anyon with admin/owner rights on the page.

That was idea one. Idea two is that I think it's worth opening up the bulk of the page instead of relegating changes to a section. If you want to point out that the gully is free of snow early in the season due to the south aspect, you want to add that information right next to the route description with the gully. Putting it anywhere else makes it hard to assimilate. This would really just become a comment section. It's uninspiring. I've added comments to pages that I thought were really helpful, then the page owner didn't log on since 2007. It wasn't worth it for me to go protesting to the Elves about it and I definitely didn't want to own the page. So I think for meaningful change people need to be able to alter the content of actual important sections of a page.

But mrchad9, you are surely right about the practical aspect...these are all castles in the sky until/unless we can get time from Matt to try it out...

by **mvs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:37 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:...
2. I've been a broken record on this in the past, but I think getting rid of albums and getting rid of the POTD/POTW display would do marvels for reducing site clutter and improving overall quality of submissions. And it might bring back a few people who got sick of the off-topic material gaining such prominence. On the other hand, some people do make some very nice, and even informative, albums, and the argument would be that banning albums would be unfair to them. I, though, would happily delete the albums I have made. Recently, I gave away several that I did not want anymore and would not make now. The only reason I didn't delete them was that I knew there were links to some of them on other people's pages, so I didn't want to mess up those people's work.

Well, leave the existing albums alone, but remove the ability to create new ones. People who made albums will now make trip reports. Hopefully due to the format change they'd be inspired to write some connecting text between the pictures to explain the relevance.

I dunno, I just see albums crop up again and again as a problem, as a kind of "symbol for what is wrong." I don't really notice them, and I still have issues with our site like I'm talking about here. Therefore it's clear that curtailing or removing albums isn't quite enough.

Just a devil's advocate question: we often call the Albums "off topic." What is to prevent these people from creating trip reports that are equally "off topic?" Because that might just be the next problem we face...

(EDIT: answering my own question: require that a trip report be attached to a mountain, area or route. That way, if you post a TR of bunny pictures, at least they'll be South Tyrolean bunnies in the Seiser Alm alpine meadows

)

by **Buz Groshong** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 8:59 pm

Vitaliy M. wrote:
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.

http://www.summitpost.org/view_object.php?object_id=466167&type=vote_comments&discussion_id=426482#426482

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:02 pm

mvs wrote:Just a devil's advocate question: we often call the Albums "off topic." What is to prevent these people from creating trip reports that are equally "off topic?" Because that might just be the next problem we face...

People determined to use the site as a storage tank for every picture they take outside the front door (and some inside) will always find ways. But I think throwing up some roadblocks will deter some and slow others down.

by **mrchad9** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:05 pm

Could we ban specific members from editing our pages? I don't want Vitaliy M. editing my page. I hear that guy is a dick.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Buz Groshong

by **mvs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:07 pm

Fletch wrote:One thing I just thought of. I know we would allow people to edit pages in this new system. Can we make it so that only members with a certain (albeit minimal) power ranking can edit? That way we avoid the wiki aspect of a free for all and the possible ambush by someone who adds nothing to the site coming in and screwing around with a page.

Why not? Require membership and 20 power points. People with 20 seem to have a page or two under their belt, and some decent images. This number could be (cautiously) altered at any time by the elves to dial up or down the interactivity.

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:12 pm

mvs wrote:
Fletch wrote:One thing I just thought of. I know we would allow people to edit pages in this new system. Can we make it so that only members with a certain (albeit minimal) power ranking can edit? That way we avoid the wiki aspect of a free for all and the possible ambush by someone who adds nothing to the site coming in and screwing around with a page.

Why not? Require membership and 20 power points. People with 20 seem to have a page or two under their belt, and some decent images. This number could be (cautiously) altered at any time by the elves to dial up or down the interactivity.

Tricky call. Definitely require membership. But what if a world-renowned climber joined and wanted to edit a page on a big peak? Should we tell him (or her) to submit a few trip reports first? (Great for the site if the person did, but probably more likely to send the person packing.) But it's a good point. You can imagine some troll coming in and changing a bunch of pages to a stream of obscene crap.

by **mvs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:13 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Could we ban specific members from editing our pages? I don't want Vitaliy M. editing my page. I hear that guy is a dick.

Haha!

Man, Matt'll never do this stuff. Okay, what if there was such a feature, but rather than being at the page level it's at the user level. So on your settings page you can enter some names of people that are banned from making changes to your public page sections. However, if you gave them admin permission on any of your pages, that would supercede this field.

Putting this feature on the level of each page makes things too complicated.

This feature could itself be abused. A jealous page owner might just add anybody who tried to edit a public page section to the list. Enough of that and the feature will be regarded as a joke, much like Apple's support for DRM-free music, but I digress. :p

by **mvs** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:16 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:
mvs wrote:
Fletch wrote:One thing I just thought of. I know we would allow people to edit pages in this new system. Can we make it so that only members with a certain (albeit minimal) power ranking can edit? That way we avoid the wiki aspect of a free for all and the possible ambush by someone who adds nothing to the site coming in and screwing around with a page.

Why not? Require membership and 20 power points. People with 20 seem to have a page or two under their belt, and some decent images. This number could be (cautiously) altered at any time by the elves to dial up or down the interactivity.

Tricky call. Definitely require membership. But what if a world-renowned climber joined and wanted to edit a page on a big peak? Should we tell him (or her) to submit a few trip reports first? (Great for the site if the person did, but probably more likely to send the person packing.) But it's a good point. You can imagine some troll coming in and changing a bunch of pages to a stream of obscene crap.

Yes. I think we have to do this though. Because it's a strong "ownership" community, some kind of good citizenship safeguard is absolutely necessary. We will lose the chance for Steve House to drop by and make these kinds of edits (sucks, I know), but it's essential to have some level of protection against trolls. However, Steve House could add a comment, and you'd be a real cretin to keep any relevent info he provides out of the main body.

(edit: spelling)

by **Bob Sihler** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:36 pm

Fletch wrote:Either way, it sort of self regulates as long as people maintain their pages and look for comments/additions that appear bogus...

And there we go. Smarter trolls would mess with pages by inactive owners, and maybe obscure ones at that, so that it might be a long time before anybody noticed. I think I have to agree with MVS that there would have to be a contribution threshold, preferably tied to pages, not pictures at all.

Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Re: Wheat v. Chaff?

Who is online