Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

by **mrchad9** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:32 am

Suggestions for improving page content…

Leave the power point system alone with respect to editing pages. Nothing is broken there yet so let’s not bother fixing it. If folks don’t want to make a correction or edit because it lacks power then so be it. It is a good idea to reduce the power points for photos by 90% and to change how votes affect page scores, but those are different discussions. Also leave alone the technical/nontechnical route issue. I am not sure what exactly that is trying to resolve, as you can already filter perfectly well by route grading.

Incorporate a section at the end of each page that any user can edit, which can contain corrections, current conditions, additions, etc… Note that this would not be a thread like we see for comments on TRs, or should it contain comments about the page (no ‘great page so and so!’), but just content that is more integrated onto the main page. I think it is obvious it would not apply to certain object types like albums and TRs. Owners would not have a choice to display this section, it would always be there. There would be a link at the top of this section that would direct users to another screen where they have full edit access to ALL the content in it. Here are my original posts on the topic which I think explain it well…

mrchad9 wrote: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 on 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: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 members 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 chooses to incorporate it into his writeup.

So yes, since the page author has access to the section just like anyone else, they can delete stuff from it (assuming it is out of date or they put it in their writeup). Other members can delete stuff from this area too. They might do so if conditions from a year ago are still listed.

Also, the page owner should have a means to see if someone has edited this section. They could be notified the same way we see comments on our pages, just a little page edits box on our profile that always displays when and who last made an edit (with an option for email notification and more visible than the content currently in the box showing objects you can edit- maybe it is just a modification of this existing profile box).

Some members have suggested this section be a different color. Well, the section would have the same formatting capabilities as other sections, so if you wanted your edit to be in a different color and knew the html code you could do just that.

I also think in this section it is unnecessary to automatically show the contributor. That would be complicated in this location and a better way would be for users to type their name next to their addition should they choose to do so.

I think the above is the first step. The next is allowing edits of other page content. I strongly prefer a system that allows any user to submit edits to any section, which then must be approved or rejected by the owner within 45 days before they are visible, otherwise they get shown automatically after the waiting period. In this system it would be good if the person’s name were shown by their addition, which the owner could remove if it was a simple grammar one. The owner should also be able to revert the edit later if they missed the 45 day window. I think the suggestions that offer greater access to pages, even if the owner is OK with it, carry too much risk (owners relying heavily on others to create the content, throwing up incomplete pages for others to fill, etc…).

by **Bruno** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:00 pm

Bob Sihler wrote:I'm going to report to Matt that the option most liked and least disliked is the idea of an open corrections section on the main page

To be honest, I have difficulty to understand the advantages of having an editable section at the end of the page, which are not provided already by the "addition and correction"?

Personally, I can see the sense of either:
- making additions/corrections using the option currently existing. Of course, this option has its disadvantages, such as having the corrections often not included by the owner on the main page, but it allows at least to add or correct some essential information.
- and/or editing pages (for the ones that would be open for public edition).

But an editable section at the end of the page is a kind of "hybrid" system with hardly any benefit compared to the current "addition & correction". It could even weaken it: in the current system, there is at least the date of the correction, which might help the reader to understand if it more or less updated, and having the name of the author of the comment, the page owner can contact you if he has some doubts or needs more information before editing the main page.

I had a quick look at some "addition/correction" I wrote, and found that about 90% of them have not been included on the main page, but at least they are still here and an interested reader might take the time to go through them for more beta.

But I don't see the meaning of starting editing an additional paragraph at the end of the main page, correcting name, access, date of first ascent, climbing history, altitude, latitude, longitude, broken links, permit situation, etc, all in the same paragraph. In the end we might end up with rewriting the page, with an "original outdated page on top", and a revised page with information contradicting the original one at the bottom... The result might be extremely confusing...

Here below just a few examples of additions/corrections I have been posting. I would be grateful if someone could show me how to integrate this meaningfully in an open section at the end of the page:
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=151130&type=vote_comments&is_addition=1&discussion_id=435505#435505
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=150230&type=vote_comments&is_addition=1&discussion_id=414623#414623
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=171056&type=vote_comments&is_addition=1&discussion_id=432467#432467
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=150575&type=vote_comments&discussion_id=432462#432462
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=277936&type=vote_comments&discussion_id=431436#431436
http://www.summitpost.org/object_discussion.php?object_id=152010&type=vote_comments&is_addition=1&discussion_id=294398#294398

The proposed system might work better for adding new information, but for corrections it is for sure not the best option.

by **Bruno** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:04 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Some other things I picked up from the preceding posts:

1. This is not about taking over poor pages from INACTIVE members.

Actually it is also about this, as a huge number of pages are owned by inactive members. But instead of having only the current possibility of adopting the page, opening these pages for "public edition" would be a great option.

The following user would like to thank Bruno for this post
Josh Lewis

by **chugach mtn boy** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 4:19 pm

Thanks for weighing in Mr. Chad. A few thoughts:

mrchad9 wrote:It is amazing to me that people are sitting here requesting features that SP already has, such as being able to see only technical routes or being able to categorize photos as beta photos and filter on them. Both of these are very accessible features already.

Not too amazing. Almost all the ideas on here (including yours to essentially move the additions/corrections page onto a main text section) are merely tweaks to get SP to do what it already does, but in a more user-friendly way. The learning curve for new or casual users is much longer than people think. Some people who had been here for years did not understand the search and filter features. There is nothing wrong with making things a little simpler, more intuitive, and more obvious in order to attract new participants.

mrchad9 wrote:3. A good point by Redwic “I also would really hate for people to start whipping-out new Mountain/Rock pages with little/no information, and especially if those page owners have not even attempted the peaks in question, just expecting other people to "fill in the blanks".” mvs wrote of wiki-style “more people would step up … because they can rely on the community to fill in items that they lack.” I am not in favour of pages in progress, or owners being able to choose to fully open pages or sections they created, for the reasons Redwic stated here. I am not in favour of a wiki-opt in.

Redwic and Chad are starting to persuade me that this feature could indeed lead to more rather than less junk posting. Too bad, because I really would like a way to open a few sections of a few of my pages. Maybe there's a way to design in some safeguards.

mrchad9 wrote:9. mvs wrote “nothing will change the way people vote...I don't think that even an addressable problem!” Well… that is a flat out asinine comment. The issue with the voting is how the scores are calculated, in that only 10s can raise a score. The way you address it is to change the scoring system. Completely addressable in every way.

Not an asinine comment, just one you don't agree with. More to the point, changing the scoring system is more tricky than people think. I'm in favor of it, but many of the ideas I have seen for changing it would make it worse.

mrchad9 wrote:Some members have suggested this section be a different color. Well, the section would have the same formatting capabilities as other sections, so if you wanted your edit to be in a different color and knew the html code you could do just that.

I think what people were suggesting is not that commenters be able to make their comments appear in a different color, but rather that the whole comment section be differentiated in some way (blue background, blue font, whatever) so that readers won't confuse it with the author's text. I think the differentiation would be a wise feature to add.

by **mrchad9** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:13 pm

Bruno- I think the benfit to having a open section at the end of each page is that the summary is on the main page, more integrated into the rest of the information. I rarely notice the link for corrections, and if you print out a page they do not appear. I agree that ulimately something where users can submit edits to content within a page is better and necessary. This is more of a temporary solution.

Bruno wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:Some other things I picked up from the preceding posts:

1. This is not about taking over poor pages from INACTIVE members.

Actually it is also about this, as a huge number of pages are owned by inactive members. But instead of having only the current possibility of adopting the page, opening these pages for "public edition" would be a great option.

There is already a process for taking over pages from inactive members. An improvement would be to have a mechanism where those pages are highlighted (ability to filter and see pages where the owner has not logged in for 1+ years, rather than when the page hasn't been updated over that period.

chugach mtn boy wrote:There is nothing wrong with making things a little simpler, more intuitive, and more obvious in order to attract new participants.

True. But the folks who suggested the ability to see only technical routes, or categorize pictures, were not new participants.

chugach mtn boy wrote:Not an asinine comment, just one you don't agree with. More to the point, changing the scoring system is more tricky than people think. I'm in favor of it, but many of the ideas I have seen for changing it would make it worse.

We are going to disagree there. The comment was that the scoring system and how people vote CANNOT be addressed. That is simply incorrect, and not a matter of opinion. How to address it is subject to debate, but it is addressable if Matt decided to do so.

chugach mtn boy wrote:I think what people were suggesting is not that commenters be able to make their comments appear in a different color, but rather that the whole comment section be differentiated in some way (blue background, blue font, whatever) so that readers won't confuse it with the author's text. I think the differentiation would be a wise feature to add.

Yes, but that could still be done on a page by page basis by those commenting. However, if you wanted to make it the default then Matt would have to program it.

by **mrh** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:07 pm

Well I haven't read all 20 pages of this so I'm speaking from an uninformed position here. But I don't understand all the need for these major changes. Through PMs, corrections/additions, comments we can all participate and share info that can update and improve pages. Yes that doesn't work well when owners are inactive, but extended inactivity can get pages assigned to others. And yes some people are jerks and won't incorporate suggestions for improvements, but no matter what changes we make there will continue to be jerks finding new and different ways to be jerks. And anything we incorporate will have unintended consequenses; mainly people finding new ways to mess with stuff that we can't foresee right now. Its the human way. Just be very cautious with whatever is decided here.

One other observation: Over time I've noticed its generally the same people who are wanting new and different features added. Their suggestions/requests never stop. Its just the nature of some people to want to twink things or lead a new idea. If something truely is a good idea then fine, but lets not accommodate people just because they clamor for change. They will always be calling for changes.

by **mrchad9** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 8:58 pm

Are you saying some people are proactive and want to help this site continuously improve, rather than stagnate and fall short of its potential?

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Bruno

by **mrh** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:05 pm

mrchad9 wrote:Are you saying some people are proactive and want to help this site continuously improve, rather than stagnate and fall short of its potential?

I'm sure that is the belief and intention of some people.

by **Arthur Digbee** » Mon Oct 31, 2011 9:15 pm

mrh wrote:One other observation: Over time I've noticed its generally the same people who are wanting new and different features added. Their suggestions/requests never stop. Its just the nature of some people to want to twink things or lead a new idea.

"I know engineers, they LOVE to change things. " -- Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy

by **lcarreau** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 12:57 am

Arthur Digbee wrote:
mrh wrote:One other observation: Over time I've noticed its generally the same people who are wanting new and different features added. Their suggestions/requests never stop. Its just the nature of some people to want to twink things or lead a new idea.

"I know engineers, they LOVE to change things. " -- Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy

by **Arthur Digbee** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:43 am

Larry that photo is a FAKE. They speak with American spelling in the 23rd century.

With that, the thread seems to have reached its natural end, well and truly hijacked.

by **TyeDyeTwins** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:24 am

Alright I am throwing my hat into the ring...here are my 2 cents. NO CHANGES are needed. I can see that there is a problem when a "not so quality" page is neglected for too long. However it is not right for just anyone to come in and make changes to a page that is "owned" by someone else. Most pages on this site take lots of time, effort and work to create, and that is what makes each unique page great. Please....NO CHANGES.

by **aaporik** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:44 am

I in general agree changes but please protect original author.

Also I suggest there should be a system to check the ability of author. The material in any shape he/he is providing on SP either this is belong to him/her. In my case (from Pakistan) I see high score high marks SP Author hardy know in Pakistan for their work or in other words for example High Class mountain pictures they post on SP even a mountaineering can not image such a super high altitude shot and the author well known in Pakistan that he/she never been to these mountain or pictures not belong to him/her. Yet there is no system on SP to counters such people.

by **Alpinist** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 1:40 pm

aaporik wrote:I in general agree changes but please protect original author.

Also I suggest there should be a system to check the ability of author. The material in any shape he/he is providing on SP either this is belong to him/her. In my case (from Pakistan) I see high score high marks SP Author hardy know in Pakistan for their work or in other words for example High Class mountain pictures they post on SP even a mountaineering can not image such a super high altitude shot and the author well known in Pakistan that he/she never been to these mountain or pictures not belong to him/her. Yet there is no system on SP to counters such people.

There IS a way of dealing with such matters. If you are certain that information posted to SP is wrong, or that a photo was stolen, you should post a message in the Feedback Forum. People have been challenged like this in the past and material WAS removed by the Elves. You should be very certain though before you challenge someone. If you are not well known on SP, then it helps to have someone else confirm what you are saying. Or post links to other websites that confirm the facts, if possible. If you care about the quality of SP, then you should proactively work to correct errors.

The following user would like to thank Alpinist for this post
Afzal, Bob Sihler, Marcsoltan

by **Bob Sihler** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 3:30 pm

aaporik wrote:I in general agree changes but please protect original author.

Also I suggest there should be a system to check the ability of author. The material in any shape he/he is providing on SP either this is belong to him/her. In my case (from Pakistan) I see high score high marks SP Author hardy know in Pakistan for their work or in other words for example High Class mountain pictures they post on SP even a mountaineering can not image such a super high altitude shot and the author well known in Pakistan that he/she never been to these mountain or pictures not belong to him/her. Yet there is no system on SP to counters such people.

As Alpinist said, there is a system in place if you are sure something has been stolen. But please be very careful about that, as it is a very serious accusation.

Regarding people writing pages for mountains they haven't climbed, I agree that is a problem in a lot of cases, but it has unfortunately never been expressly against site rules. it's also been discussed in great detail many times before, and this thread is probably not the place to open it up again.

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

Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Re: Discussion: Collaboration, Edit/Submit Changes

Who is online