There are a lot of good ideas and suggestions here, and some bad ones as well. Let’s not modify the vote system to entrench what is bad about it already (having a +1/-1 or thumbs up/down vote that is the same as voting a ten or a one) and OMG there are enough thanks in this thread already… having power points for a thanks count is the worst suggestion I have ever heard!
Adjusting power points for edits, especially the number of characters in them, seems like another bad idea. I appreciate pages that are concise, and the most valuable edits are not the longest.
It is amazing to me that people are sitting here requesting features that SP already has, such as being able to see only technical routes or being able to categorize photos as beta photos and filter on them. Both of these are very accessible features already.
Some other things I picked up from the preceding posts:
1. This is not about taking over poor pages from INACTIVE members. The issue here is actually pages that need additional information and are held by ACTIVE members who may be slow or absent in improving them.
2. To those who say to leave SP the way it is… look at the Cloudripper page. It’s a very popular peak and the content is terrible. With the current process it just isn’t worth trying to update it. Users are worried about being seen as point grabbing or the annoyances of having to go through someone else who may ignore them just so they can help others. There is a better way, otherwise I would have added to the Cloudripper page already.
3. A good point by Redwic “I also would really hate for people to start whipping-out new Mountain/Rock pages with little/no information, and especially if those page owners have not even attempted the peaks in question, just expecting other people to "fill in the blanks".” mvs wrote of wiki-style “more people would step up … because they can rely on the community to fill in items that they lack.” I am not in favour of pages in progress, or owners being able to choose to fully open pages or sections they created, for the reasons Redwic stated here. I am not in favour of a wiki-opt in.
4. We need a mechanism so that users can have complete control over their pages, but if submitters are neglectful they can be bypassed. I view my pages as a complete work, trying to incorporate a variety of photos and approach options for example, and do not want others to have access. But something that allowed users’ edit to show if I did not review a potential addition should be reasonable. Brian Jenkins suggested 90 days for an approval, otherwise the edit would show without approval. I’d go for 45 days.
5. I don’t agree with a time limit or power score that affects other members’ ability to submit edits. The process could require owner approval to show an edit, unless it was ignored 45 days, then that should address the concern a minimum score was attempting to control. With a final section that showed current conditions/corrections that didn’t need owner approval, I would be as interested in what a user with no power points has to say as anyone else.
6. If a user edits a page, something that showed who contributed the content would be excellent. I’d like to know who wrote something if I am relying on it for information, so I can weigh it appropriately. To do this, it would need to be implemented in a way to avoid showing names for simple grammar corrections, etc… perhaps when the owner approved a revision they could check a box to not show the contributor (if it was a simple one) otherwise the default would be to show the name.
7. The goal should not be to have duplicate pages, or discussion lines on a page, or to use TRs to submit what should be on the main page. I like SP over sites that feature more of a TR format because I just want the details needed for the peak, on one page, without a lot of fluff. I never want to browse through a handful of pages to see what is best. TRs for content generally don’t get the job done anyway, or we wouldn’t be discussing this now.
8. Route pages are submitted far less often than mountain pages, so much so that many mountain pages include the route information on the main page. I see no reason to split them into technical or nontechnical (which you can already sort by), and that doesn’t really solve the issue here at all (knoback’s temper tantrum notwithstanding… and btw it wasn’t he who raised the issue of editing existing pages, rather I did to diverge his thread into something more constructive).
9. mvs wrote “nothing will change the way people vote...I don't think that even an addressable problem!” Well… that is a flat out asinine comment. The issue with the voting is how the scores are calculated, in that only 10s can raise a score. The way you address it is to change the scoring system. Completely addressable in every way.
10. Aldocious wrote “1. have the author of a trip report be able to moderate his/her comments. So in other words be able to delete any comment” well… that is another bad idea.
Fletch said it well here:
Fletch wrote:Im trying to save the site from itself. It's not a matter of "the site is going down hill." News flash, it's been going down hill for some time now. Quality is what I'm talking about. These statistics make my head spin...
I looked up the power score for all of the new members going back to 01/01/11. Since January 1st of this year, Summitpost has had 4,392 new members. This makes up ~12% of the total membership (36,148 total members). Of those 4,392 new members, only 24 of those currently have power scores in double digits (i.e. more than NINE). 24 out of 4,392 have contributed more than a profile pic. UNFREAKINGBELEIVEABLE. That equates to 0.546% of new members ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING. And of those 24, only 6 of them have a score above 50. Does anyone else see this? Six freaking members for all of 2011.
Why isn't the new membership contributing anything? Either they don't want to, can't figure it out, take no pride in it, or the existing pages are too protected by their precious owners that most folks say fuck it, let one of those 'old school' guys make a page?
I just think we need to spice it up a bit. Otherwise, the contributors will someday get fed up (as they have over the last few years - knoback, 1000pks, DMT, etc, etc, etc), leave, and the 'old school' will be left sharing butterfly pics with themselves and bitching about POTD...”
OK that’s all I wrote on my flight… I’ll clarify my suggestions on the train home, especially what I had pictured for the freely editable section at the end of pages (I’m going to take credit for my idea despite the possibility that may erode some support for it) since that is what folks seem to agree on most and I had a pretty complete picture of what folks might like there.