Quality Slipping?

by **Kiefer** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:05 am

butitsadryheat wrote:Of course, if this person would stop putting up crap pages, then the quality would stop slipping, almost immediately.

HEY! I'll let ya know that my crap smells like roses! -or whatever I ate that night :ugeek:

Thanks for the props dryheat!!!

But yah, it was cool to see the person in question make some recent changes and try. I think the biggest problem with new posters to this site is that they put something up with the best intentions but lose interest quickly due to the 'peanut butter' aggrevation that is HTML or get distracted by other things in life (family, beer, Family Guy etc.).
There are a few things solidly irritating about this site, make no mistake. But I do believe SP and our members get a lot of things right. Ya gotta admit, we have some good, quality pages on this wiki-site.
If anything, perhaps SP is going through yet another identity crisis, growing pains.

I harp and throw shit on poor submissions like anyone else. But it's something I'm trying to change into more of a mentor or peer advice platform.
One thing I CAN do without though, are all these recent profiles of dentists, wanna-be salesmen (or women) or 'hipsters' trying to make a name for themselves by flodding search engines at SP's expense.

The following user would like to thank Kiefer for this post
lcarreau

by **CSUMarmot** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:58 am

I always miss the fun threads.

by **lcarreau** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:59 am

Buz Groshong wrote:
Oh, and I like the bear also.

The following user would like to thank lcarreau for this post
Josh Lewis, Rick B

by **lcarreau** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:03 am

CSUMarmot wrote:I always miss the fun threads.

Yeah ... but I bet you didn't miss THIS ..

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMK8stw4eLE[/youtube]

by **Bob Sihler** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:58 pm

For those who believe fellow members should step up and help before reporting pages, here is a perfect chance to help a new member who obviously wants to contribute but doesn't seem quite up to speed on SP format and expectations:

http://www.summitpost.org/thunder/830279

There are two other pages by this member as well.

by **mrchad9** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:00 am

Check out the 2nd featured article on the front page. LOL!

by **Bob Sihler** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:06 am

SP members, please note that the preceding post referred to a now-deleted article, not to ericvola's article.

by **Josh Lewis** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:18 am

Regarding the post Bob mentioned, I contacted him. He replied quite fast and seems willing to put some more work into it. I suggested adding photos and refereed him to the bulk uploader. So perhaps we might see something within 24 hours.

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

by **Josh Lewis** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 10:58 am

Mission accomplished! The person I sent the PM mentioned above liked the tool and used it to upload photos. They appreciated my PM which pointed them in the needed direction (in my opinion). Personally I think the bulk uploader needs another featuring because many folks do not know about it and it is incredibly useful to SP. My friends on SP (high contributing members) did not know about the bulk uploader until I told them. Now they post many nice photos (some of which get Photo of the Week every now and then).

And if we are worried about bad photos posted, raise the bar and increase photo integrity. Everyone on SP should not suffer because of a few bad pics!

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

by **Humphrey** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 2:36 am

http://www.summitpost.org/altitude-sick ... edy/830797

Is an advertisement high quality?

by **Scott** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:52 pm

I've been gone, so I missed out on this thread.

Each elf has things he pays more attention to than others, and I think I'm the one most invested in checking on quality of new submissions; I especially watch the mountains, areas, routes, and canyons, and trip reports to a lesser extent. I pay virtually no attention to the other page types unless someone calls attention to them.

However, sometimes I miss something or see an incomplete page go up and forget to check up on it a couple days later. That's why it's helpful for members to point out bad pages.

Bob, I often point out bad/incomplete pages, but here is one that was never addressed:

shingle-peak-inaccurate-page-t63318.html

Other than one sentence, the entire page is inaccurate and bogus. The photos aren't even of the right mountain.

Attempts to help the submitter were made:

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

by **Bob Sihler** » Tue Jan 08, 2013 11:50 pm

Scott wrote:I've been gone, so I missed out on this thread.

Each elf has things he pays more attention to than others, and I think I'm the one most invested in checking on quality of new submissions; I especially watch the mountains, areas, routes, and canyons, and trip reports to a lesser extent. I pay virtually no attention to the other page types unless someone calls attention to them.

However, sometimes I miss something or see an incomplete page go up and forget to check up on it a couple days later. That's why it's helpful for members to point out bad pages.

Bob, I often point out bad/incomplete pages, but here is one that was never addressed:

shingle-peak-inaccurate-page-t63318.html

Other than one sentence, the entire page is inaccurate and bogus. The photos aren't even of the right mountain.

Attempts to help the submitter were made:

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

Scott, I missed that thread.

So what do you propose? You know the Flat Tops pretty well. Do you want the page? I'd rather see it adopted than have to delete it.

by **ScottyS** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 1:19 am

Ahhhh some things never change. Pass the popcorn.

by **Scott** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:11 pm

So what do you propose? You know the Flat Tops pretty well. Do you want the page? I'd rather see it adopted than have to delete

Unfortunately, I think it should be deleted. Yes I know the Flat Tops well, but I only have one or two usable photos of the peak and the photos on the page aren't of the right peak. As said on the other thread, my bet is the owner of the page stayed in the Sweetwater Resort with his family and hiked to the Turrett Creek Meadows, which is still a fine hike. To me it appears that he made no attempt what so ever to climb or to describe Shingle Peak on the page, and instead just pretended that Turret Creek Meadows was somehow the same thing as Shingle Peak.

To me an incomplete or vague page, or even no page at all is better than a page that is flat out wrong. Six plus years was enough to improve the page and the inaccuracies were pointed out years ago. Someone else will eventually add a better page to the peak.

Sometimes pages that look good aren't actually any good if you actually read them and the page in question is a good example. Another page on a nearby mountain isn't very good either, but although it doesn't look as good to an untrained eye, it isn't flat out inaccurate, just vague:

http://www.summitpost.org/ellison-mountain/698979

Vague information is still better than inaccurate information.

by **Bubba Suess** » Wed Jan 09, 2013 2:18 pm

Just turn it into a trip report. It reads like one and the pictures are appropriate for that type of page. That way the guy does not loose what there is on the page (little as it may be) and it clears the way for a new page to be made by someone else.

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

Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Re: Quality Slipping?

Who is online