SummitPost.org

I have an idea and am interested in hearing others' thoughts on this.

Instead of outright nuking pages that are still incomplete after, say, 24 hours, I can go in and change the page to a custom object and tell the owner to keep it that way until finished. When it's done, the owner can change it back or resubmit it. If the owner changes it back before it's done, I nuke the page.

One advantage is that this may help avoid alienating new members who want to contribute but don't yet understand how the system works. Other advantages: reduced clutter in the content areas, and no junk bumping completed pages off the What's New lists.

The disadvantage is that it will take much more time and effort on my part than it does just to delete a page.

I still think the best approach is for members to approach the newer ones with help and advice, but a lot of established members seem to have given up on that.

Thoughts?

Sounds like a reasonable idea as long as you don't mind the extra work.

I realize it may be more work for the elves, but I think changing the pages to a Custom Object is better than just nuking it - it seems more user friendly. I don't know how many submittals this applies to but hopefully it is not many - and hopefully applies more to new members who are still learning the ropes on SP.

Changing the submittal to a Custom Object would allow the submitter to claim "ownership" of an Area/Mountain/Route (as long as they are making steady progress towards completion). It would also give the added benefit of keeping the clutter off of the What's New lists.

For those of us that are "html challenged" I could see how it may take some time to clean up a page (this is why I pretty much just use the standard SP code to create pages). As for Trip Reports, I don't think "time for submittal" is all that big of a deal, since they aren't specifically required to contain any useful beta (hopefully they do though).

I have found that friendly PMs to newer members explaining to them how SP works are well received.

I think your suggestion is a good compromise Bob. However, consider the following potential road bumps.

-What is the criteria for converting a page to a custom object? It sounds very subjective, which could be messy. Though I guess the same is true for deleting a page.

- If the page is converted to a custom object, no one will find it if they search for it under the category of mountain or route page. That may lead to someone else submitting a duplicate mountain/route page. What will you do then, assuming you even remember that there is a custom object for essentially the same purpose?

MarkDidier wrote: As for Trip Reports, I don't think "time for submittal" is all that big of a deal, since they aren't specifically required to contain any useful beta (hopefully they do though).

I think Bob's suggestion is an excellent one as long as he's OK with the extra work.

I can't agree entirely with Mark's comment above. A properly intentioned TR has the potential to be as useful a source of beta as the parent mountain/route page in that it should describe actual on-the-ground field condtions. A bad/empty/irrelevent TR should be gunned as rapidly as a bad/empty/irrelevent mountain, area or route page.

I think it's a good idea, but it might be more work for Bob in the long run, than he anticipated.
But if so, it's simply to abandon the experiment.

If a person has a shitty page, and is WARNED repeatedly about it in a courteous and professional
manner..

..and, the person fails to make the required updates or corrections.. then..

the page should be deleted. Just my two cents. Or, it can be given to somebody else
who gives a damn about the price of tea in China.

- Larry of AZ

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I say leave people's page submissions alone. You have no business nuking someone's work. Sheesh.
DMT

You call this "work"?

Dingus, there's a lot of empty pages, which just a name on them and nothing else. Started, but not done.

But there are cases, in which I agree with you. There has gone plenty of work into this page for instance, which isn't done yet. I made the basics, together with the rest of the national parks pages. Was it deleted, even if not ready, I'd be mighty pissed.

yatsek wrote:Another

I'm trying to get my flatmate to join SP, she's a complete Bieszczady fetishist and knows a lot about the area. Maybe she could adopt that one...

As it was said many times before, we've got to distinguish between large pages "under construction" which show reasonable signs of work in progress, are already completed to a great extent and can already serve as informative resources the way they are, and crap pages that someone once posted and abandoned.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:I say leave people's page submissions alone. You have no business nuking someone's work. Sheesh.

DMT

Mods have been deleting bad and empty pages for years; it is nothing new, and that's not the point here. Few would seriously argue that any bad page should stay.

The issue here is an idea that would address this without alienating people by deleting their pages, and one of the questions is how long one should wait before taking that step. Your answer apparently is "Indefinitely." Point noted.

Alpinist wrote:I think your suggestion is a good compromise Bob. However, consider the following potential road bumps.

-What is the criteria for converting a page to a custom object? It sounds very subjective, which could be messy. Though I guess the same is true for deleting a page.

- If the page is converted to a custom object, no one will find it if they search for it under the category of mountain or route page. That may lead to someone else submitting a duplicate mountain/route page. What will you do then, assuming you even remember that there is a custom object for essentially the same purpose?

Good questions, and no perfect answers.

1. The main focus of the custom object idea would be the new pages. Incomplete pages hogging up space and knocking others' completed work off the What's New page is a sore spot for many people. Many people routinely check the new pages just to see what fellow members are up to, and they get very frustrated seeing incomplete pages there. With older pages, I'm inclined to delete incomplete ones and let mediocre ones stand.

2. It's true about the mountain/route search, but it would still come up under a search of all objects. Plus, do we want a searcher finding an incomplete page? That person might not come back to SP. And if someone else submits a complete page in the meantime, I'd say that's the chance you take when you don't submit finished work.

So I think I'll give this a try and see how it works.

I'll wait two full calendar days-- if you submit September 13, nothing happens until September 16. Then it becomes a custom object with a message like this sent to the owner:

Thank you for showing your willingness to share your knowledge with the SP community by submitting this page. Because this page was posted three days ago and still is not complete, it has been changed to a custom object so that you can continue working on it but it will not appear along with the completed new pages of its type. When you are finished with the page, please change it back to the desired page type or resubmit it as an entirely new page. Changing it back before that will result in the page's being deleted. If you need any help with this process, I or another staff member will be happy to do so.

Lolli wrote:There has gone plenty of work into this page for instance, which isn't done yet.

It's subjective, of course, but I see that as more of a work in progress than an incomplete page even if it is, strictly speaking, incomplete. Personally, I think they should remove the Under Construction picture and let the page stand as it is while they work on it. But I have to point out that since the last work on it was done almost three years ago, there's reason to doubt much more will be done.