by Alpinist » Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:26 pm
by mrchad9 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:57 pm
by Bob Sihler » Wed Nov 02, 2011 4:26 pm
by Buz Groshong » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:19 pm
SoCalHiker wrote:Bob, it's a difficult issue. If the page is in fact decent and has good information and considerable writing, I think new information should be added to the additions/corrections link. If we feel the ownership should change, I think the new owner should completely remove the "old" writing and replace it with his own words. Even if somebody did not sign in for years, it is still his page and I would assume he has copyright to his page. If the owner changes but not much is added/rewritten to the page it might become a bigger problem.
by Buz Groshong » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:24 pm
Bob Sihler wrote:I think I'm going to go case-by-case, using one year of inactivity as the line for dropping the email/PM requirement we've had before.
I transferred one such page this morning for the following reasons: the new owner presented a detailed explanation of how he planned to improve the page, the previous owner had not climbed the summit block, and the previous owner was not the original creator of the page.
In cases where a owner is active but ignores additions and corrections, I think I'm willing to go in and correct any erroneous or dangerous information if credible members inform me of the needed changes.
Thanks for the feedback.
by Bob Sihler » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:40 pm
Buz Groshong wrote:Bob Sihler wrote:I think I'm going to go case-by-case, using one year of inactivity as the line for dropping the email/PM requirement we've had before.
I transferred one such page this morning for the following reasons: the new owner presented a detailed explanation of how he planned to improve the page, the previous owner had not climbed the summit block, and the previous owner was not the original creator of the page.
In cases where a owner is active but ignores additions and corrections, I think I'm willing to go in and correct any erroneous or dangerous information if credible members inform me of the needed changes.
Thanks for the feedback.
We probably do neeed some sort of action. I know of one member who hasn't logged in since 2007 and hasn't responded to comments/corrections on every one of his six or seven pages. The pages are good pages and the inaccuracies are by no means life-threatening, but they should get fixed.
by yatsek » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:09 pm
by SoCalHiker » Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:48 pm
by Alpinist » Thu Nov 03, 2011 3:14 pm
SoCalHiker wrote:Another point to consider is that if we were to implement this on a regular basis, more and more pages will eventually in the long run be "owned" by the same people who already have dozens or hundreds of pages. That in itself might be good since those members usually create pages with good/great content, but it might frustrate or "scare away" people with less time, few pages, or new members.
Just a thought.
by Bubba Suess » Fri Nov 04, 2011 6:05 am
Alpinist wrote:We could start a thread for the purposes of drawing attention to poor quality pages and/or newly adopted and improved pages. Members could then help to decide the fate of a page via their votes. That would help the Elves to take appropriate action.
by surgent » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:20 pm
by desainme » Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:32 pm
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests