To be fair, it can be very hard to find some trailheads, and that info doesn't need much besides written directions. However, a map is nice, or some sort of greater context beside "it's in colorado" or whatever.

I don't think SP can escape the current binary voting system of 10/10 or nothing. In a fair world, a lot of good pages would get an 8/10 or 9/10, but with the current system, that would sink such good pages below a lot of crap.

I recall putting a lot into this page. I really wanted to end the road confusion and give good directions for this area. Several of the people in our club had gotten lost, trying to follow the roads to 6 mile canyon, and the roads from the NE. Good 'ole 1000pks saw I was working on that area, and wanted me to notify him first when it was done. He immediately voted 8/10, saying that was a generous vote, knowing full well that with the current system, it would send the page to the trash heap, because the rating came out like 75%. I deleted the page and put it up again, adding only the one picture that 1000pks said was absolutely necessary: the register.

In the current system, one 8/10 vote can sink a page, IF you believe the philosophy of SP, that the voting tends to send bad pages to the bottom. Myself, I check all information; a lot of the pre-2006 pages are quite useful, but have lower average scores from the days of anonymous voting.

If you give a low vote, say why in the comments section, and indicate how the page owner might improve the page.

PS: The user response (2 people) to that page has been curiously negative. If people get lost failing to follow directions, they usually want to put the blame on the instructions. One fellow keyed a waypoint into his GPS by hand, then claimed "my waypoint" was way off. I checked the waypoint, found it was exact, and asked him if he had keyed it in correctly. He hadn't; but why he complained before checking this out is beyond me. Another fellow thought I had sandbagged the route from 6-mile canyon, claiming it was class 4, not 2. I asked him if he followed my instructions, and he said no, he likes to do his own thing and thought the cliffs looked like a better route than mine. But that really wasn't my problem... except in his own eyes and his reporting to other people.

So again... why do we do this?

To be honest Moapa, I would have assumed you had more common sense than to let a character like 1000 pks motivate you to delete your beta/writings no matter what he said or did.

The answer is easy. Either you are doing this for the potential users of your content, who end up ranking your pages on Google which is really the only important rating that amounts to anything on the internet, or you are misguided. You sure don't do it for the SP membership at large, many of which would obviously have no interest in your area of expertise, whether it be climbing level or geographical.

Does SP lack any dynamic function as a site within a site? Agreed, poorly maintained and quite inbred and boring in that regard. Does it serve its purpose in its interaction with the god of internet gods, Google search? yes. It does for me anyway. If something you contributed does not get ranked first and foremost, then either it was unhelpful to the public (poorly written and organized) or unnecessary and of no use to the internet public (outdoor enthusiasts/climbers) at large to begin with.

Dow Williams wrote:If something you contributed does not get ranked first and foremost, then either it was unhelpful to the public (poorly written and organized) or unnecessary and of no use to the internet public (outdoor enthusiasts/climbers) at large to begin with.

I agree with your google ranking statement, but I disagree with what you said here. I recently made a page that was not "ranked first and foremost" which it has a ton of useful information. It's actually a more important page than my Sherman Peak page because of how much more the route needs descriptions on. Views affect votes, if a page is not viewed much, then it should not expect to see much votes. One of my better photos I posted recently had 0 views. SP works kinda like facebook, something goes unnoticed until someone comments on the page... then suddenly everyone notices it.

your problem is Josh,either you are putting up beta that folks are not googling for to begin with or there is already adequate beta on the internet for that objective (it is so common)...climb and submit more difficult and remote objectives if you want higher google rankings...your SP votes have nothing to do with google ranking...zero...most all of my climbing contributions float to the top of google...obviously none of them are popular on SP...there are very few climbers here...for example, you never vote on my pages because they are of no interest to you, same with me on whatever you might submit I am sure......you want SP recognition, fine...make friends on SP...you want google recognition, you have to earn it...and either that is your sole purpose for contributing here or you are truly wasting your time...the active membership at SP is thin to say the least, 99% of the folks I meet in the field who use my beta are not SP members, but rather users of the site..who the advertisers care about

I find pages through object searches and the interactive map feature. Sometimes I check out the What's New section, but I don't tend to click on much there. Sometimes I use Google and check out other sources. I usually remember to vote 10 if a page is useful and decent. Sometimes I comment if the page seems exceptionally well done. I used to vote less than 10 and/or add comments and additions when I felt I could contribute useful information, but it has been awhile. If the suggestion I would have seems non-essential, I don't bother. If I have a note on conditions I leave it in the climber's log section. I almost never vote on anything besides mountain and route pages. I almost never vote on a page for a place I am not researching for a current visit.

I appreciate pages for obscure peaks much more than ones for popular peaks and general areas like national parks that are basically a duplication of information easily available elsewhere. Others may feel the same, but not bother to vote or join SP.

Dow Williams wrote: If something you contributed does not get ranked first {on google} and foremost, then either it was unhelpful to the public (poorly written and organized) or unnecessary and of no use to the internet public (outdoor enthusiasts/climbers) at large to begin with.

My search of google for Morey Peak Nevada put my summitpost page second, after a google map. I doubt this is so much due to the number of hits, as the fact that there is very little information about this destination anywhere.

Google rankings are a mystery to me; they must rank 1st the site with the most hits, be that number small or big. Often a search for an obscure place will turn up a lot of robo websites suggesting real estate and amenities near some mountain in the middle of nowhere; quite odd. But your conclusions strike me as debatable. A popular destination gets a lot of hits (e.g. Mt Whitney trail), but a description on summitpost is for completeness only, because the information is so widely available elsewhere. It is really the odd peaks and routes that are found nowhere else, that should be on SP.

Dow Williams wrote:To be honest Moapa, I would have assumed you had more common sense than to let a character like 1000 pks motivate you to delete your beta/writings no matter what he said or did.

It was trivially easy to reconstruct the page; I had foreseen his odd behavior. I thought he was beginning to get rational then, and I was wrong. His brain was permanently wired with a mean streak.

I have gotten thanks from people who have used my pages. I've also see strong evidence they were used by some of our SP luminaries; at least I know the information did someone good.
(edit: grammar and clarity)

ZeeJay wrote:He's received quite a few negative votes but not a single one of the people who down voted him has bothered to tell him why or suggest improvements unless they did so in a PM.

Yah. Contacted him twice about it via PM. Explained SP's purpose and that his submissions are not in line nor even make sense in a mountain/canyon sense. More of a snippet that belongs in a travel guide really. Once, no response. The second time, he just thanked me for looking.

yatsek wrote:

Kiefer Thomas wrote:But, hey, sugar-coating doesn't do ANYONE any good. People just need to be more understanding and learn to accept [good] criticism as a tool for improvement. 6/10 shouldn't be viewed as a personal attack...it's representative of the time & quality put into a page. Nothing more.

6/10 That's right-wing, chauvinist and authoritarian.

Hey! I have a left wing too!

MoapaPk wrote:If you give a low vote, say why in the comments section, and indicate how the page owner might improve the page.

ABSOLUTELY!!!

yatsek wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:I don't think SP can escape the current binary voting system of 10/10 or nothing. In a fair world, a lot of good pages would get an 8/10 or 9/10, but with the current system, that would sink such good pages below a lot of crap.

Sure. But some pages deserve to be sunk - with anything from 1-9/10.

And what will happen is that a lot of crap pages will still get 10/10, and few good pages, that people actually read, will get a few 8/10.

Before the FOIA, it was possible to include negative things in reviews of former workers or former students. In that time (say the 1970s), the average review for government workers was about 70%. After FOIA, the average review shot up to about 95% I remember getting a lot of letters of recommendation in the 90s that said vaguely positive things, then ended with "call me." During the call, you would discover all the nasty stuff not mentioned in the vague glowing review.

My route comes up first result in Google. You were comparing ranking with quality which I assumed you meant SP with votes. If you meant Google, since when did the quality of your submission play a role in your ranking. I thought it had more to do with the overall site reputation and the seo (search engine optimization) quality of the site.

Dow Williams wrote:you want google recognition, you have to earn it...and either that is your sole purpose for contributing here or you are truly wasting your time...

How about neither. I'm not striving for google recognition, although it is certainly a nice thing to have. And I'm pretty sure I'm not wasting my time contributing if people are using my beta... am I mistaken? Well at least I have fun making pages.

MoapaPk wrote:And what will happen is that a lot of crap pages will still get 10/10, and few good pages, that people actually read, will get a few 8/10.

My thoughts exactly! I've had some of my best work getting 7/10's which I was fine with. This is why it's becoming increasingly important for a 9/10 in the system to be more gentile so that people can vote more honestly.