Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:56 am

Bob- you are advocating sticking with the current, high red-tape, laborious and time consuming process for members to put volunteer effort into updating pages, some of which are clearly lacking. You have not proposed any improvements!

It is not fair to a qualified member to expect them to wait 1-2 months in a case where the current owner hasn't made any substantive additions to a page that they didn't create. It isn't a process that I would follow. For me Matt's outline applies to work an active owner created or developed substantively beyond what it was when it was received. If it isn't something you developed, then everyone has equal rights to it. And this is especially true for the most heavily trafficked pages. If the owner is already inactive, then those pages are abandoned too. Making this difficult is why we have so few adoptions and so many pages out of date.

And I'm not talking about taking good pages from active members who spent time generating information.

It's about what is best for the site and members, not what they should be able to live with.

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:13 am

mrchad9 wrote:Bob- you are advocating sticking with the current, high red-tape, laborious and time consuming process for members to put volunteer effort into updating pages, some of which are clearly lacking. You have not proposed any improvements!

It is not fair to a qualified member to expect them to wait 1-2 months in a case where the current owner hasn't made any substantive additions to a page that they didn't create. It isn't a process that I would follow. For me Matt's outline applies to work an active owner created or developed substantively beyond what it was when it was received. If it isn't something you developed, then everyone has equal rights to it. And this is especially true for the most heavily trafficked pages. If the owner is already inactive, then those pages are abandoned too. Making this difficult is why we have so few adoptions and so many pages out of date.

And I'm not talking about taking good pages from active members who spent time generating information.

It's about what is best for the site and members, not what they should be able to live with.

I'm just saying we should start from scratch given all the recent changes and new staff additions. From today, follow Montana Matt's proposal. That's what I suggest. That may not be aggressive enough for you, but I happen to see some of what's being proposed as excessively heavy-handed. SP just went through some significant changes. Settle on a policy, publicize it, and then go.

So few adoptions? Josh, Scott, and many others would attest to the fact that I have transferred numerous pages over the past few years. Sometimes I have transferred them on the same day, without question. Sometimes there has been a waiting period and an attempt at contact.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not comfortable with some of what's being proposed here. It's like the barbarians bashing down the city gates and ready to storm the place. Not my style. If that's the direction SP is going, fair enough, but if such is the case, then it's time for me to step aside rather than stand in the way.

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
Cascade Scrambler, lcarreau, MarkDidier, rgg, Scott

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:18 am

I like Matt's proposal.

Yours was a change to his proposal.

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:21 am

Just please explain to me, using my Merced Peak page as an example, why I should have any more rights to it than any other random member qualified to work on it if I haven't made any updates? And no one should have to wait two months just because I decided to hold it and then get up off my ass and do something AFTER someone more ambitious comes along. If they had the initiative to ask and promise to do something then let them have at it!

It isn't my page... it just happens to be under my profile.

Applying that list to ALL pages, as you put in bold, would make the adoption process worse, not better. It is a good solution for content submitted by active members as Matt originally proposed.

by **Sarah Simon** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:25 am

toxo wrote:Yeah, I, too, like to pose with my itty bitty titties:

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

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:26 am

mrchad9 wrote:I like Matt's proposal.

Yours was a change to his proposal.

How? Do you mean my preference that the interested party contacts the page owner first? If so, I stand by that because I think it's better for members to work with each other before calling in the referees.

Otherwise, I don't see how I was changing anything. The rest of what I wrote was basically a caution against over-zealousness.

P.S. If it is indeed time for me to step aside from the brave new world of SP, I promise not to be the big drama queen some other recent departees have been, and I won't take all my toys with me. Sorry, popcorn people. :wink:

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:27 am

No one is asking you to step aside Bob. Don't be dramatic.

See Matt's post above.

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:41 am

mrchad9 wrote:Just please explain to me, using my Merced Peak page as an example, why I should have any more rights to it than any other random member qualified to work on it if I haven't made any updates?

You should have the right to make the suggested (or required) changes within a finite but reasonable time frame. If you don't, you lose the page to a willing taker. That's all I'm saying. Agree or disagree as you will and as is your right, but that's my position.

Applying that list to ALL pages, as you put in bold, would make the adoption process worse, not better. It is a good solution for content submitted by active members as Matt originally proposed.

Why? Let me clarify-- I do not mean pages by people who have not logged in for years; those are pages I transfer almost always without question. I mean pages by active members, and not adopted pages, that are bad but which the owners refuse to improve. Applying Matt's idea to such situations would at least create a standard policy. It has been too arbitrary for too long, and I would welcome something clearer.

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

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 3:56 am

mrchad9 wrote:No one is asking you to step aside Bob. Don't be dramatic.

Don't you make me invoke the Douchebag 8!

Seriously, though, I'm saying that if SP is to go in a direction I don't feel comfortable with, then I should get out of the way instead of being an obstacle. Don't worry; I'm not busy deleting my stuff on another tab as I write this-- I'm just waiting to see where this all goes.

On second thought, a typical SP drama departure might just be too much fun to resist...gotta put all those Internet personalities in their places and shame them accordingly and change the world and all... :wink:

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:13 am

Bob... My time to update the Merced Peak page has passed. I've had plenty of time. Two more months isn't needed to give a fair shot. The same applies to other members in a similar situation. I've had it a year, why should I have ADDITIONAL special consideration just because it fell into my lap and I did nothing versus someone else grabbing it? I'm not hearing an answer to that. A finite but reasonable time has already passed. I see a case for maybe one or two more days, but to continue drawing it out isn't necessary. It isn't my work, just fell into my lap as I said.

We need not have a policy that facilitates grabbing as many pages as you can and doing nothing until someone else comes along and puts a time constraint on it. If your content is yours... Then it is yours... And every attempt will be made.

But if you adopt a page you better improve upon it, because if you don't you might not always have it (and then you are no worse off than before... We've hardly damaged anyone). That is the policy that would encourage the proper behaviors.

All you have to do is improve the pages you take. If that is too much to ask, then don't take it in the first place. Sorry for being so unreasonable.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Josh Lewis, lcarreau

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:15 am

Oh Scott your desire to throw wrenches into everything is insufferable.

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:31 am

Here is another example. lcarreau adopted two pages today. He said he was going to improve them. Otherwise he had no business adopting them right?

Well if a year goes by and he does not follow through but someone else comes along, I'm sorry but I see no reason to wait two more months for him to get started. If he wanted to update them in 2014 then wait until then to adopt them. Improve pages you take, and it doesn't affect you. Simple.

by **Bob Sihler** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:35 am

mrchad9 wrote:Bob... My time to update the Merced Peak page has passed. I've had plenty of time. Two more months isn't needed to give a fair shot. The same applies to other members in a similar situation. I've had it a year, why should I have ADDITIONAL special consideration just because it fell into my lap and I did nothing versus someone else grabbing it? I'm not hearing an answer to that.

So send it to the Orphanage or, as you seem willing to do, give it up to someone else who asks. Obviously, you are not the problem. Some are more stubborn. Give them a chance and a deadline. Just make both clear.

All I want is a clear, consistent policy.

All you have to do is improve the pages you take. If that is too much to ask, then don't take it in the first place. Sorry for being so unreasonable.

Not unreasonable. But if there's a new sheriff in town, then lay down the law and give people time to react instead of storming in with the 45's blazing. Save the cannon until it's really necessary. Believe me...I know. :wink:

by **mrchad9** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:40 am

My suggestion is clear and consistent. If you adopt a page, update it. If you take a year and someone qualified asks for it, don't expect to keep it for very long.

Same as Matt originally suggested. Otherwise, I feel we are looking for ways to hold back and do nothing. You have no rights to a page you didn't update or manage just because it fell onto your profile.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
John Duffield

by **Scott** » Fri Feb 22, 2013 4:40 am

Oh Scott your desire to throw wrenches into everything is insufferable.

I actually haven't said anything all evening and have just been watching periodically.

I just agree with Bob that a member should have fair warning before having pages taken; that's all.

As far as me not ever offering specific solutions; I have proposed many to various issues:

suggestion-pages-up-for-adoption-t64309.html

suggested-change-new-route-section-on-pages-t64249.html

suggestion-t64260.html

Just because you didn't like them, doesn't mean I never proposed any solutions to anything.

My specific solution to this situation was to give a heads up to the person and to give the person a chance to fix things after inaccuracies were pointed out. I never said to do nothing.

For the record, so far this week I have transferred 11 pages for adoption, so I have made efforts to allow people to adopt pages.

Edit:

My suggestion is clear and consistent. If you adopt a page, update it. If you take a year and someone qualified asks for it, don't expect to keep it for very long.

I see no problem with that rule. Just make it a rule that everyone knows about. Perhaps in the adoption forum that was proposed. I think it would help to come up with and let everyone know of some rules for adopting a page.

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

Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Re: Ineffective Members Stashing Inadequate Pages

Who is online