I believe that people who create beta pages have a responsibility to maintain those pages. If they do not log in to SP for 1 year, then how could they possibly know if there are additions/corrections/changes that need to be made to the page. If they don't log in for 1 year, then they are not living up to that responsibility. I don't think the page should be "automatically" put up for adoption or opened to editing by other members. However, if one of their pages has additions/corrections that have gone unattended, and another member wants to adopt the page, then I support either giving them full control or shared control of the page. We could also tie this into a low page score (below 70).

I wouldn't tie it into a low page score... once a page gets a decent score it tends to stay that way, even if it needs updating.

Though this member is still logging in, here is an example of why page score shouldn't be used. If this member weren't logging in then this page should be transferred without hesitation to anyone determined effective enough to improve it.

http://www.summitpost.org/mount-morgan-s/151316

I agree with lcarreau. Open the floodgates. Decide if the recipient is qualified on a case-by-case basis, but if they will improve the page, don't let a current acceptability of the page hold things up- even if the page is much better than my example above.

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.

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.

I don't agree with this. I took over a page that needed some pictures. I was the one who got it because I was the closest to the mountain in question. I went out and took some pictures and I changed some of the text, but I left a good bit of the page as it was. Don't see anything at all wrong with that; SP is a collaborative effort. For what it is worth, the former page owner moved out west but is still a member and active as far as I know; haven't heard any complaints from him.

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.

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.

Just let me know and I'll get around to the corrections.

The way I see it, a page should get a new owner (providing there's anybody willing to maintain it) if the current owner/admin hasn't responded in any way to what others have placed in Additions/Corrections over the past six months. Whether or not the owner keeps logging in is much less important.

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.

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.

Is this in reference to someone's suggestion that members should have a minimum power ranking before they can adopt a page?

I don't think we should limit the adoption of low quality pages to long standing members. If additions/corrections have gone unattended, or if a page score is low, and a newer member wants to adopt the page, they should be given the chance. If they don't do a good job, even after some coaching, then either give the page back to the original owner or to someone else. With some coaching, that new member could become a high caliper contributer.

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.

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.

I have seen this type of thread pop up from time to time and believe that it is really useful. I think pages that have low scores or are out of date ought to be posted to thread so that the community is made aware of them. If someone wants to adopt and improve it, then the elves can reassign it. Obviously, this does not answer the question of the OP, as to when exactly this kicks in. Perhaps if a member does not log in after a year, an email is sent to them automatically alerting them to the fact that their contributions would then be made available for adoption in six months.

Periodically I will order all pages by ascending score. A lot of pages have a score of 0, as in never voted upon. Some aren't bad, some are clearly bad pages.

It seems to me a page with a 0 score can linger on SP literally forever.

There are also a number of pages with scores below 10%. Again, some are pretty rotten and need to go. A lot have been in existence for 5+ years now. Somehow they still linger. Are low-scoring pages automatically deleted, or is it up to one of the elves to manually clean up the place?

I just now voted on a few of the 0-score pages that were "under construction" for over 6 months now. They're now in the 3% range, the intention being to have them removed at some point. Some of the other low-scoring pages aren't that bad. In a few cases I suspect these scores are a carry-over from SP1 with the 4-star rating system. In any case, we can speed the process along by killing off the deadweight and giving a boost to some pages that could use it.

One could make a subpage for mountain x- sort of an appendix that could take over once it is clear that the original contributor is gone or has no further interest.