rgg wrote:

norco17 wrote:What if the peak is yet to see a succesful summit bid? There are a lot of climbers on this site that climb some pretty obscure things. I think on some of this stuff a partial page is better than no page. It might be that information that allows the next team to be sucessful. I gues we could always just use a trip report for that and not a mountain page.

Indeed there is nothing wrong with posting a trip report about attempting a peak and not making the summit. Especially if there is little information out there about the mountain, it could be helpful for others. Another option would be to article about it. As I see it, the definition of an article is pretty broad, so if you've got lots of information you wish to share about a mountain but, for whatever reason, don't think that a trip report is suitable for it, perhaps an article is the right format. Even if there already exists a mountain/route/area page, it's fine to post an article that zooms in on a particular aspect of the mountain/route/area page. Obviously, it' shouldn't just rehash what's already on the mountain/route/area page, it should expand and add something valuable. I could think of several examples. To name just a few: the climbing history of a mountain or route, the geological history that has lead to the creation of an area, a history of the people living in the area, war time developments...

Once, I attempted a peak by a couple of different routes, circumnavigating it in the process, but could only get so far before it turned too technical, which I wasn't prepared for. I felt I didn't get close enough to justify posting a mountain page, but I did post a TR detailing my attempts and the conditions:

http://www.summitpost.org/pectols-pyram ... tes/691317

So far, what you've got here is a collection of opinions from less than a dozen members, not really any sort of consensus. A look at some of the pages already posted shows that this so-called unwritten rule hasn't really been a rule at all. It has been based on the view by some members of what the site is about. There are a few pages here that are obviously written by members who have done some good research but have not climbed the mountains that they write about. For mountains that can be climbed by a number of our members, it is entirely reasonable to require that the page be created and maintained by someone who has climbed it.

On the other hand, there are mountains that likely will never be climbed by anyone here, but maybe should be represented here - I think a K-2 page would be a good thing to have here, even if none of us have climbed it. To me, leaving out important mountains because no member has climbed them is a detriment to the site. Right now we don't follow any policy consistently; we have a page for Taulliraju but none for Chacraraju - both are beautiful mountains that few have climbed. We have plenty of pictures of both and both are well covered in several books. Furthermore, anyone contemplated climbing either would surely not come here to look for info, but others who will never climb either of them should be able to at least find a bit of historical info on them and a few pictures.

A look at some of the pages already posted shows that this so-called unwritten rule hasn't really been a rule at all.

I think the biggest question is do we want it to be a written rule.

I think a K-2 page would be a good thing to have here, even if none of us have climbed it

Since the K2 page was brought up, it's a good example to discuss. All the good information came from other members, not the submitter or maintainer.

The page was actually of a very poor quality and still can use improvement, though it isn't as bad now.

Most of the recent upgrades were written by me (and previously they were written by other members). I had to go back and forth via PM with the maintainer just to get him to make the corrections. He PM'ed me about removing my flag, and I'd tell him he needed to fix several things such as the history. I've never been to K2, but anyone who has a basic knowledge of the mountain knows when the history et al is majorly screwed up.

As for pages already submitted, I don't know of what the best policy should be.

However for future submissions, I am wondering if people would like to see a written policy that the submitter must have climbed or attempted the mountain. As mentioned there could be some very rare instances such as an erupting volcano or a sacred mountain where the true summit is off limits, but such exceptions should be really rare. Further if there is such an exception,the maintainer would at least have to have first hand information about the mountain and will have had to had gotten as close as he/she could. If the policy was in writing and as a "thou shalt", rather than just a guideline or consideration, there wouldn't have to be any future dilemmas on the topic.

Right now we don't follow any policy consistently

Yes; that's the problem.

I guess you can require authors to sign the peak register for the pages they author.

MoapaPk wrote:I guess you can require authors to sign the peak register for the pages they author.

if they're not going to follow the guideline in the first place, why would this matter?

i'm all for changing/updating the process, but i don't see how that helps.

full disclosure: i've climbed (as in reached the summit on) each of the five peaks i own. getting pages transfered to me has not always been easy, i think 3 of the 5 required help from an elf.

norco17 wrote:The thing I am not in 100% agreement with is the "no duplicate pages rule." If there is a legitimate issue on a page and the owner is contacted several times and does not fix the page themself or hand over editor access to another contributor then the elves should allow a second page to be built and the page votes can decide which is better.

on this i disagree. there should be no duplicate pages. if everything is as described in this quote, then the page itself should be transferred over to the requester, providing s/he can demonstrate what improvements they would make. collecting it just to collect it is not a valid reason, but for example, one of the peaks i requested had two or three basic errors just in the first paragraph.

why should a new page be created and maintained, along side another page for the exact same peak/route/whatever, and *hope* that it gets enough votes to finally become the actual page? and really, if you're going to get rid of the worse page (otherwise, why have a vote at all?), then just let the new owner fix the existing page instead of starting from scratch.

brichardsson wrote:there should be no duplicate pages.

Right, and I don't think that is going to change anytime soon. When I was 14 years old on SP I felt that duplicates were okay. But now I feel differently about it considering climber logs, images, and attached objects. If it weren't for those three facts I might be willing to go the other way. Now in a ideal world the giving up pages idea seems to work. This does work a decent percentage of the time on SP. However there are plenty of cases with stubborn owners don't want to give up their pages but don't feel like fixing them up. This is when things get messy. In some cases the owners add a little bit more just enough to "pass". Annoying, but at least something got done in those cases.

At the end of 2013 as an elf I had to do perhaps one of the biggest page negotiations in SP history where tons of very important pages got transferred. The process can be very delicate and take months in some cases. But in the end I feel that it's worth it and for the betterment of SP. No feelings were hurt in the case I mentioned, and nothing had to be pried fortunately.

In regards to dupes, what does everyone think about having one of the Elves contact the owners of the two pages (in private of course) and finding who wants to take responsibility of the mountain/route and combining them? If one person relents control, then it's an easy case closed problem. If both parties want it, then have the elf try and mitigate 'tween the two to an amicable decision.
If no one responds, well, make the lesser quality page a child of the better quality page and throw it into the orphanage.

And I like what Buz had to say about K2 (as an example). For a hiking/climbing/mountaineering site like this, it's pretty much a given not everyone here has climbed K2, Machupachare, Devil's Thumb, Chacraraju, Gangkhar Puensum etc. But, these are significant mountains on the world stage. Having them here on SP I think, would not really be a treat per se, but would kinda fill in the gaps.

Josh Lewis wrote:Now in a ideal world the giving up pages idea seems to work. This does work a decent percentage of the time on SP. However there are plenty of cases with stubborn owners don't want to give up their pages but don't feel like fixing them up. This is when things get messy. In some cases the owners add a little bit more just enough to "pass". Annoying, but at least something got done in those cases.

this should not happen. sp is not a popularity contest, and it does not exist to stroke my ego because of how many pages or routes i own. it exists to provide beta for peaks and routes. if a page i own can be significantly improved upon, and i elect not to do it, then it should be fair game for anyone the elves deem capable.

Sakkinen wrote:In regards to dupes, what does everyone think about having one of the Elves contact the owners of the two pages (in private of course) and finding who wants to take responsibility of the mountain/route and combining them? If one person relents control, then it's an easy case closed problem. If both parties want it, then have the elf try and mitigate 'tween the two to an amicable decision.

That's a good suggestion. However, we've already done that or something much like it on a few occasions.

Back to the subject--

I know I'm in a small minority here, but I am not in favor of posting pages one hasn't climbed or made a legitimate attempt to. Not at all. And yes, that includes Everest, K2, etc.

I guess this debate comes down to what you see SP as. Is it an encyclopedia of mountains, or is it a place to obtain quality, first-hand information for climbing objectives? This will be no surprise, but I am of the latter persuasion. If I want to read about K2 on my lunch break, I'll go to Wikipedia or buy a book. While I do read and vote on new submissions, even for peaks I have no interest in, that's to encourage new members and encourage participation, not for my edification.

The pages I post are, by and large, meant to get people interested in a particular objective and give them helpful climbing information based on my own experience. The occasional comment I get thanking me for the good beta or telling me how my writing inspired someone to climb the peak or explore the area is a reward beyond votes and power points.

The SP pages that have meant the most to me have been the ones that provided helpful climbing information to me. That's SP's real value to me. I don't give a rat's ass how much research someone has done into a page for a peak he hasn't climbed. I could do the same for any number of peaks in the world that I'll never see and never climb. But if I did, I'd feel like a schmuck for doing it.

Off the soapbox now...

In regards to dupes, what does everyone think about having one of the Elves contact the owners of the two pages (in private of course) and finding who wants to take responsibility of the mountain/route and combining them? If one person relents control, then it's an easy case closed problem. If both parties want it, then have the elf try and mitigate 'tween the two to an amicable decision.

If you are speaking of the Loft, I don't think it's a problem since the route is for two different mountain pages they don't share the last sections of the route anyway.

I don't usually sign summit logs for route pages, but other members do. If you want to sign the summit log for the route, it may be good to have them separate. The majority of people using the route are climbing Longs Peak via the Loft, far fewer do both or just Meeker using these routes.

As for which method is better, one or two route pages, I don't know. I have done it both ways for my own pages. There are advantages and disadvantages for either and it is dependent on many factors, including what percentage of the route is shared between the two mountains.

If a route is a traverse covering both peaks, one route page should be made and it attached to both mountain pages.

If routes are truly duplicate, they should be deleted.

Not at all. And yes, that includes Everest, K2, etc.

It may be harsh to make it retroactive though (as long as they are of reasonable quality) and simply take those pages away or delete them since those pages were added years ago. We could still make it a rule from now on though. People who have added these pages should be encouraged to let them go if someone else interested has climbed or attempted the peak though.

Scott wrote:

Not at all. And yes, that includes Everest, K2, etc.

It may be harsh to make it retroactive though (as long as they are of reasonable quality) and simply take those pages away or delete them since those pages were added years ago. We could still make it a rule from now on though. People who have added these pages should be encouraged to let them go if someone else interested has climbed or attempted the peak though.

I don't propose the rule should be retroactive; it would be breaking the faith with past practices. But I do know that in my years so far as an elf, we have strongly discouraged new submissions of this sort and been largely successful; also, we have been supportive of other members trying to enforce the same (such as the erstwhile page for Red Castle ).

But it should be a rule going forward, and we should also be open to transferring a page, no matter how beautifully done, to a qualified person when the existing author has not climbed the peak or made a real attempt to do so.

But it should be a rule going forward, and we should also be open to transferring a page, no matter how beautifully done, to a qualified person when the existing author has not climbed the peak or made a real attempt to do so.

I agree. Assuming the membership agrees, could the rule be put in the submission tab? It would be nice if there was a note in there to check for duplicate pages as well. These are fairly common among new members who don't know the rules.

http://www.summitpost.org/new_create_object.php

Bob Sihler wrote:But it should be a rule going forward, and we should also be open to transferring a page, no matter how beautifully done, to a qualified person when the existing author has not climbed the peak or made a real attempt to do so.

this rule should also apply to pages that need updates, especially major ones. imho, if i've climbed a peak but posted wrong info, that's even worse than having not climbed it at all.

this is why it's a good thing that im not an elf.