Brian C wrote:I completely agree that there are some pages that need to have some more work put into them, but once it reaches a certain point is personal taste and the trouble would be who determines where that line would be drawn. One person's definition of a good page may be dramatically more detailed than another and both could still be good pages.
Exactly. This is a
deep concern of mine regarding this issue. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it.
Last summer, within a week of my climbing a certain peak in Montana, another member put up a page for that same peak. Already, I had been planning in my mind the layout and text of the page I was going to make. And the page was, in my opinion, a disappointment both for the peak and compared to what I had in mind. I sent the member a PM which, looking back, I see was fairly rude, expressing my disappointment and my hopes that he would do a better job than he had with his other pages. The member, a bit insulted, deleted the page and told me I could do it. Then he had a change of mind and reposted it. Later, I took a gentler approach, giving him some tips and corrections based on my own climb of the peak. He was gracious and even told me that my Montana pages were part of the reason he had moved out there, which made me feel a bit bad about my initial approach.
Unfortunately, he has yet to incorporate the corrections and suggestions, one of which involves the actual elevation of the peak, for he uses the elevation marked on maps which actually is for a benchmark a little below the highpoint.
However, although it is a disappointing page relative to what I would have done, it is not a bad page. It tells a little about the peak, it has accurate driving directions, and it has good enough route information that one could use the page to climb the peak.
I could make a persuasive argument, based on the corrections I pointed out and the fact that he hasn't incorporated them, to take over the page, but I have to ask myself: is this more about my wish to have the page or my wish to improve the page, and is the page okay as it is?
There are
a lot of other pages on SP that, if I am honest, I could and would do more with but are sufficient if not great or even very good. Some that come to mind quickly, and I'm not trying to pick on anyone, are the following: Absaroka Range, Gros Ventre Range, Wind River Range, Pinnacle Buttes, Hilgard Peak, a number of CO 14ers including Longs, Angels Landing, Telescope Peak, Medicine Bow Peak, quite a few scrambling peaks from Red Rock Canyon NCA, and several from NC and VA. Maybe I will get around to asking the page owners if they want the pages anymore, but I don't see any forced changes as justified.
A real concern I have, to echo Brian C, is that in some cases, people are not differentiating want from need and simply want pages because they want to make them look prettier.
So, regarding two specific pages brought up in this thread:
Avalanche Gulch-- Chad has climbed Shasta several times and is one of the most knowledgeable people on this site when it comes to that peak. I do not question for an instant the points he makes about the page. But now that this matter has been brought into the open, I think it's fair that Brian Kalet be given the chance, with a time constraint, to update the page accordingly if he wishes to keep the page. In the spirit of many of the recent changes here, I think people should be given that opportunity. It concerns me, as Chad points out, that the page is missing information on the crux of the route; a route page does not have to hold my hand, but it definitely should prepare the climber at least somewhat for the crux. And I also disagree with the fact that climbing the route one time 8 years ago disqualifies him from having the page; many of us have pages for peaks and routes we have climbed only once. What would disqualify him is if he fails to incorporate crucial information and make noted corrections.
Mount Baker-- With all due respect, Josh, I do not see the case for taking over this page. The owner was last active and last updated it in September 2012, late September, so not even 6 months ago. It is not a bad page. Could it be spiffier? Yes. Is it bad? No. Are there several route pages attached that contain the meat for climbing the peak? Yes. I'm sorry, but this one strikes me as a case of want over need. Leave the decision up to the owner, or, if he stays inactive for several more months, then let's consider the page abandoned and transfer it to you.
EDIT-- see my post below before responding to the Baker comments.
On balance, I think Chad has the stronger case for a forced adoption, but I think a set but reasonable period of time must be given.
And I'm sorry if it looks as though I'm calling you guys out, but you two did, after all, open this up and bring others into it in the first place, so feel free to return the favor.
(Note-- I recently adopted the Zion page and have made some changes but am not done, so no clamoring for that page yet!)
Montana Matt wrote:Perhaps a reasonable process to propose for adopting pages is the following:
1) A member contacts the elves stating clearly what the page is lacking or how it could be improved. There should be some concrete list of things that they believe need to be added to bring the page up to date or to simply improve it.
2) The elves review the list and, if they find sufficient reason to, the member owning the page is contacted and provided the list of needed improvements. The owner is given 30 to 60 days (depending on the magnitude of the changes and other outstanding factors) to implement the changes.
3) When the changes have been made the member contacts the elves (or after the 30 to 60 day window passes). The elves then review the page to ensure that the things that were listed have been addressed thoroughly.
4) One of the following will happen after the elves review:
a)If the changes are sufficient, the original owner retains ownership.
b)If the changes aren't sufficient, but obvious effort has been made, the member gets additional time to redo whatever the page may still be lacking.
c) If after the 30 to 60 day window, the page hasn't been touched, it is immediately transferred to the member who initiated contact about the page.
I think the above is the best idea I have heard so far regarding this. It seems fair to all parties. However, I would propose applying this policy to
all pages, adopted or not, that someone deems insufficient. That would make more work for the elves, but I do not think it is too much to ask, especially since there is a group of us that would be keenly interested in handling this policy-- Chad, Josh, Matt L., and I at the very least. Probably Scott, too.
(But I still think the first step should be the member attempting to contact the owner directly.)