Do you think I would let just anyone CORRECT my terrible pages? You think I would let someone who has not climbed my routes, tell me how I need to improve them? With GPS data, Guiding Services available for the area, Hotels in the vicinity, Campgrounds available? You get the point. That is what will happen if you allow just anyone to be the corrector...

Please do something about people who build mountain and route pages after flying over the area twice on a business trip and feeling qualified to proceed. You will not improve the quality of SP on the present platform. Find a way to simplify input of information and replace quantity with quality and relevance.

Just a thought on regulating a limited wiki style, but perhaps the page owner could have the option to rate an entry (only visible in the owner's view & contributor's view). e.g. if the entry is relevant, properly placed, and made to fit with the page, then full stars! Bad grammar, spelling, redundant, etc. then lower marks which remain on the poster's record even if their entry is removed.

If your 'editor' rating drops low enough, then you lose your 'wiki' editing privileges on the site. This could be a separate, community consensus on banning a member from making entries on pages they do not own (beyond just a particular page owner banning the member). Perhaps positive votes from the page owner can give you points similar to votes on photos and pages, but worth less - for those who care about points.

Perhaps this can be a way to encourage good & thoughtful edits and discourage bad edits?

chugach mtn boy wrote:

borutbk wrote:Isn't it a shame that Keith (knoback) had to leave in order for a serious discussion to take place?

Putting aside why knoback actually left, what he was talking about before he left was what he saw as the misuse of the "routes" category for all manner of trails and walks. I think he identified a genuine problem, and I would propose, on a going-forward basis, to
(1) have a separate page category called "technical routes" and
(2) make that category of pages more wiki-style, since there seems more desire to go that direction among the relatively few serious techical climbers on SP and since it would be a restricted area in which to experiment with wiki techniques.

A side benefit is that climbers like knoback would never again have the misfortune of pulling up a "route" and finding that it's just somebody extolling the delights of a walk through the meadows. Or if they did have that misfortune, they could wiki the route right into oblivion.

Just thinking more about some of the comments here.

I think technical routes should be treated differently at some level, and this isn't some divisive or elitist attitude. Information on technical routes have a very different focus and different requirements for describing them than non-technical routes. Just compare a hiking guide to a climbing guide to see that they have a very different format! What constitutes a complete page for a hiking route vs. a climbing route is very different, so having two separate categories of objects with different entry fields to guide the creators would go a long ways in this regard.

Stats on these page could be used in very different ways as well, if SP chose to amass this information for a user beyond a list of their 'entries'. I really like MountainProject's action of taking route stats for routes a user has signed in on to show publicly a summary of they type of climbing someone does, at what level, and what frequency historically and recently. This can go a long ways to evaluating a prospective partner as to what experience they have.

I'll put up a screen capture later to illustrate what I mean.

What constitutes technical? Well, in my mind, if it generally requires specialized equipment (rope) or is above a certain difficulty rating, it could be considered technical e.g. for ratings in the U.S: 5.0 or greater, any WI rating, etc.

mvs wrote:

yatsek wrote:I don't think this lack of dynamism results from SP's anti-wiki approach.

What does it result from?

My best guesses:

1. Most people visit and join to get information, not share it.

2. We live in a world that gets faster and faster every day, and many are too lazy to take the time to make quality contributions, especially for free.

3. Many rock climbers have gotten frustrated and left because the site is not majority-focused on technical rock climbing even though it never has been (not since I joined in 2004, anyway).

4. An emphasis on photo voting that encourages massive amounts of eye candy and off-topic photos.

I think #4 has directly influenced #3. The photo discussions have been done and redone, but I can't emphasize how much of a detriment photo voting has been.

I'm not without sin. There's stuff I've submitted that I shouldn't have. Occasionally, I clean some of it out. A few months ago, I deleted some pointless trip reports I made and last week deleted some unnecessary route pages and incorporated the information on the main pages.

Nevertheless, there are some people who dump an incredible amount of junk on this site, and people who encourage it. It has turned a lot of people off, as has the voting system in general.

PellucidWombat wrote:An idea for making photos more useful for a page:

For photos that show key parts of a route, an annotation of a route, or that is a drawn topo, why not allow them to be classified differently than photos that are aesthetic or are more of the 'trip report' type? Something similar to the 'beta photo' concept on MountainProject. When looking at a route page I would love to filter my search of photos to look solely at these types of photos if I am researching a route - especially on a page with a lot of photos (e.g. an old page or a page of a popular peak/route).

Since the subject of how to improve the efficacy of images has come up, I think the single biggest thing that can be done to improve them would be to enable them to be tagged. Whether being able to tag a specific couloir through which to climb or to identify all the peaks visible from a particular vantage point, it would dramatically increase the usefulness of nearly every serious image on Summitpost.

There are already ways to edit other's pages, but

We live in a world that gets faster and faster every day, and many are too lazy to take the time to make quality contributions, especially for free.

Is it ironic that several of the people pushing for this wiki thing don't contribute their own pages?

Anyway, on the page below, dozens of people seem to have editing privilages:

http://www.summitpost.org/colorado-ridg ... les/190898

Did they have to add all the names individually or was there another way to do it?

Many rock climbers have gotten frustrated and left because the site is not majority-focused on technical rock climbing even though it never has been (not since I joined in 2004, anyway).

Also ironically, when I was new as SP, the purist were against rock climbing pages unless they lead to the summit of a real mountain. Rock climbing areas were discouraged as pages.

Scott wrote:Is it ironic that several of the people pushing for this wiki thing are too lazy to contribute their own pages?

In other words "I'm too lazy to submit my own pages, but please let me edit other's pages".

To be fair, I think most of the people who are interested in some sort of opt-in wiki variant are significant, recent contributors. Anyway, mvs certainly is.

yatsek's list:

1 "system" that cannot be altered, e.g. voting system
Agreed, since the beginning, almost back to when Moses went up the mountain. It was the cause of countless disputes in front and behind the scenes. As long as it's in motion, it will continue to be so. This is a real discouragement to potential new contributors.

2 so many mts "taken" by so few people
Unfortunately, it's the nature of the beast. The folks that were here "in the beginning" "got" those mountains by any number of ways, but with destiny certainly having a part to play in the proceedings. Some of them have moved on and it's probably time to dole out those mountains. Other "old ones" are still around. The partial wiki idea might be a good option for them if they are tired of managing their pages. Some folks still work just fine with the old system (that would be me and Ellen).

3 so many poor pages, without real info or "heart"
Wow. HIt the nail square on the head here! Couldn't agree more.

4 slow upload
Definitely. I edited the Holy Cross page the other night to update an important road status, which was a simple deletion of a special spection. 10 minutes later...

5 competition from other sites, e.g. from those for rock climbers only
SP has lots of awesome rock climbing material. It cannot have everything, though. SP's prominent contributors in this arena are very good. Dow and RPC are unbeatable for reliable beta. Other sites that have a stronger focus on this aspect of mountaineering will of course be stronger than SP in this regard, and that is fine. SP appeals to all mountain lovers. Can SP improve in this area? Sure! It's up to the contributors, though. Someone mentioned SP mirroring its contributing community. This is spot on. Right now, SP's tendency toward an activity is hiking, and it might always be that way. Changing and improving the contribution problems might be a helpful factor.

6 difficulty writing in English
It's unfortunate for our contributors not in America, but SP is an English speaking site, based in America. That's how it is. The SP communiuty has many members that are fluent and can translate material for folks. Our European members have produced duplicate pages in their native languages, too.

7 rock climbers feeling excluded (e.g. there's Best Album on the front page but there's no Best Route)
It's up to the rock climbers to change this. Just as the "old ones" determined SP's course in the beginning, so must the community determine the course now. However, I understand their position. Uploading to SP is painful, and they might (or probably) prefer to post where their material is more appropriate, such as on MP.

8 most people happy to be able to benefit from the site without having to contribute
Yes. Most traffic on SP is from lurkers.

And writing a response in this reply box is next to impossible. It jumps all around and won't stay put as I'm writing, and I can only add style elements so far into the post. It's horrible, and why I am all but absent on the forum.

Aaron Johnson wrote:And writing a response in this reply box is next to impossible. It jumps all around and won't stay put as I'm writing, and I can only add style elements so far into the post. It's horrible, and why I am all but absent on the forum.

Interesting. I've never had this problem and have not heard about it much from others, but last week Buz Groshong mentioned it. The thread he started seems to be gone; he might have figured out the problem and deleted the thread. You might consider sending him a PM.

Buz?

Edit: Never mind-- I found his post: http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/report-bugs-here-t55411-285.html. It is in the thread for reporting bugs.

To be fair, I think most of the people who are interested in some sort of opt-in wiki variant are significant, recent contributors. Anyway, mvs certainly is.

Mvs certainly is (mvs is a good example of someone who is a great contributer), but many others are not.

Examples:

http://www.summitpost.org/users/guhj/70216

http://www.summitpost.org/users/sjarelkwint/40093

One advantage of going wiki though, if it happened, the first thing I would do is delete everything that ******** (insert your own appropriate word) sjarelkwint has submitted.

last week deleted some unnecessary route pages and incorporated the information on the main pages.

Bob, I don't know if that's a good idea (unless the route needs no description), but as long as all of the information is present on the front page I guess it is OK. To me, a route page should have all the information needed for a climb (regardless of difficulty). It should be good enough that you can print it off just like a guidebook page, put it in your pocket and use as your primary source of information.

Adding (good) route information should not be discouraged. Here are some examples of some high scoring pages (due to ignorant voters) in my local area which are lacking in good route info (but which have great potential-no offense is meant to the submitters of this pages-this is constructive critisism and meant for the voters too):

http://www.summitpost.org/shingle-peak/248852

The only route information reads as follows:

You can either park on your right or continue up a steep section to park at the trailhead. In winter you will have to park at the lower section. A well developed trail will take you to Turret Meadows and eventually Shingle Peak. Be sure to follow the foot trail and not the horse trail. Be advised Sweetwater Resort does a lot of pack trips, so the trail may split off randomly to hunting camps.

The information is inadequate. It needs a route page (or at least detailed information on the mountain page).

1. There is no distance, time needed, difficulty, etc.

2. The information is wrong. There is no trail to Shingle Peak. There is a trail to the base of Shingle Peak and it's a good scramble from there.

What good is the above page when the only route information (such as it is) is wrong?

Another example:

http://www.summitpost.org/big-marvine-peak/751792

Besides the cut and paste information at the bottom, the entire page consisted of the following words:

Although not one of the ten highest peaks in the Flat Tops, Big Marvine Peak is assuredly one of the top ten most picturesque. The peak lies on the western edge of Colorado's second largest Wilderness Area--the Flat Tops Wilderness--at the head of East Marvine and Marvine Creek drainages. The peak rises beautifully from the Flat Top plateau providing outstanding views over Meeker, CO and points west as well as views of most of the major Flat Tops peaks to the east including Flat Top Mountain, Derby, Trappers Peak, and W Mountain.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Marvine Peak is primarily reached from the trailheads on the west side of the Flat Tops Wilderness outside Meeker, CO. The easiest way to get to this area is to travel to Meeker, CO and then just north of Meeker take CR8 east towards the signs pointing to Buford and Trappers Lake. Alternatively, one can reach this area by driving over Dunkley and Ripple Creek Passes from either the towns Yampa or Oak Creek. This route involves driving on graded dirt roads, with some washboard, but the views are ridiculous.

Once on County Road 8, numerous trailheads lead towards Big Marvine Peak. These trails include Big Fish Creek, East Marvine Creek, Marvine Creek and others.

That's it. The above was the entire mountain page. Later (after I said something in a nice manner), a (very few) few details were added which (finally) mentioned length of route, etc. I voted 5/10 on the page, but my vote is worthless and not even counted because everyone else voted 10/10.

IMHO, route information is the most important part of any mountain/route page.

Personally, I try to add accurate information on a route, regardless of difficulty (although no one's pages are perfect and most probably have a mistake or two).

Maybe having editing rights to some pages could help other members fix pages such as the above, but it's going to create more problems than it solves.

Interesting. I've never had this problem and have not heard about it much from others, but last week Buz Groshong mentioned it.

When a post get's a certain length, it does this to me on other forums. It must have to do with internet setting themselves since it happens on one computer I use, but not the other. I could vbe wrong, but I think it has to do with the internet setting/program itself rather than SP.

Josh Lewis wrote:

mvs wrote:What does it result from?

My friend Mark Straub left this site for the following reasons:
-Uploading one by one was a pain (he did not know of the bulk uploader)
-Was not pleased with the rating system of pages which only a 10/10 was a good vote. Not the people, but the system
-Had no luck with the plans&partners section (It's obvious to me why, I rarely get partner request from it)

And most importantly he found a site called "MountainProject" which according to him has much more rock climbing information. So for this reason this is why I feel as though this site needs change.

Hey, wait-a-minute. I thought you had (previously) told me that Mark Straub had left the site because he was leaving the PAC NW to attend college.

Makes NO difference, but (I think) a vast majority of folks are UNHAPPY with the SP rating system.

Case in POINT: I just posted TWO pictures I took during a recent hike. I was curious WHO was actually going to vote 10/10 on my pictures.

Basically, it was the same "POOL" of voters who ALWAYS vote 10/10, no matter what. So what GOOD does that do me, other than raising my POWER POINTS ???

SP-member "Bruno" was RIGHT when he created THIS amazingly ACCURATE SP-article ...

http://www.summitpost.org/the-infallible-method-to-become-potd-and-potw/487273

Scott wrote:

last week deleted some unnecessary route pages and incorporated the information on the main pages.

Bob, I don't know if that's a good idea (unless the route needs no description), but as long as all of the information is present on the front page I guess it is OK. To me, a route page should have all the information needed for a climb (regardless of difficulty). It should be good enough that you can print it off just like a guidebook page, put it in your pocket and use as your primary source of information.

I ought to clarify that they were single-pitch routes of no more than 60' in length, clustered at some local crags. I've come to agree with Dow that for small crags, single-pitch routes ought to be described on the main page so that one could, as you say (and I agree) print the page and go. For example, this page of mine-- http://www.summitpost.org/dihedrals/283325-- used to have five route pages, all with identical directions and a route description of a few sentences. You could throw a rock from one end of the crag to another. Now the route details are on the main page, with photos of the routes in the gallery and some on the page itself.

yatsek wrote:

mvs wrote:

yatsek wrote:I don't think this lack of dynamism results from SP's anti-wiki approach.

What does it result from?

2 so many mts "taken" by so few people

3 so many poor pages, without real info or "heart"

6 difficulty writing in English

8 most people happy to be able to benefit from the site without having to contribute

2. If the community could update routes/mountains that are "taken", this would be less of a problem. What happens now is that people go around creating whatever pages they feel they have any sort of qualifications for (eg flying over the range twice...), because there's no other way to contribute and "gather points". And then, it's difficult to help fix the lack of quality information on those pages, because it takes ages and a significant effort to be able to edit them.
3. These pages would be fixed much quicker if more people could help.
6. Most of the pages that are created by people with poor english skills are good enough to understand (at least parts of them), but very difficult to read. If people could help with editing, people with poor english skills could provide the information, and those so inclined could provide the grammar.
8. Don't forget though that there are lots of people out there who would gladly contribute, if only the hurdles for doing so weren't so great. (This applies to Bob's number 2 as well, quoted below.

Bob Sihler wrote:2. We live in a world that gets faster and faster every day, and many are too lazy to take the time to make quality contributions, especially for free.

Boydie wrote:Again we're looking at around 1 or 2% of users being active. Is this enough to get the wikifying to work?

This number keeps coming up. Once again, keep in mind that those are the few that have the time and energy to push past the current deterrents and contribute despite the great difficulties. If it was easier to contribute, more people would do so.

lcarreau wrote:Hey, wait-a-minute. I thought you had (previously) told me that Mark Straub had left the site because he was leaving the PAC NW to attend college.

That too, but he left in August, noticed he stopped logging in before that. If you look at his gallery most of his posts where made well before 2011. So he told me in person why.

As for the popularity contest, this is why sometimes it's good to take it easy on the voting if you know what I mean. Not to be picky, but sometimes I do it based on "unpopularity". What do I mean?

The image below only has 2 votes (one of them being mine). I think it deserves more in comparison to many of the other pictures posted here on SP.


But if this photo had 20-30+ votes I probably would not vote on it. And the reason being is that I try to give a photo a score of what it deserves. Or else there would be even more 10/10's on decent but not amazing photographs if you know what I mean.

Dan Shorb wrote:Whatever the case. Larry should be allowed to edit everyone's pages and put 1 photo or video of his choice at the top.

Brilliant idea. But, it would take up too much of my time, and I would EXPECT a free trip to the Bahamas for my work.

I would post a pic, but think you catch my drift. ...