mvs wrote:

Vitaliy M. wrote:...or should we make this thread into a cirque?

By all means! Of the Unclimbables, please!

Not what I want. If someone wants to talk about the past with me please, there is a PM button.

I'm confused Bob, please explain.

Montana Matt wrote:I'd just need someone to make it clear to me which idea would be more beneficial or supported by the SP community so that I wouldn't have to spend a lot of time reading through posts and pulling out the pertinent information.

I like my suggestion of course, but I'd nominate Bob to coordinate that and decide what the community is ok with.

Montana Matt wrote:

mvs wrote:Man, Matt'll never do this stuff.

But if someone who is closely following and participating in this thread would summarize the ideas discussed here...

Here's a recap: "Do whatever I suggest! My idea is the best!" Author: Everyone.

Seriously, though, I think there are three principal site changes brought up here that people might find beneficial:

1. Changes to how users can edit and update pages (most of that is discussed over the last 2 or 3 pages).

2. A bulk upload feature that could somehow be only available for mountains, routes, etc.

3. Possibly separating the new route pages into categories for technical and nontechnical.

The selection process for featured pages has also been discussed, but I don't think people will ever come to a happy agreement regarding geographical variety and balance of page types, so in my opinion that's probably better left to the elves doing the featured pages, though recommending pages in forum threads is always welcome.

If we were to look at changing the editing options, I think we would need to solicit a lot of member feedback and give ample time for it before making a major change like that.

Something suggested in another thread: a draft-saving feature, though I would still rather do things off-site so I always have a backup.

Bob Sihler wrote:If we were to look at changing the editing options, I think we would need to solicit a lot of member feedback and give ample time for it before making a major change like that.

Bob I think that is what Matt was asking for someone to do.

WRT your item 2... I think it would be difficult to implement. It likely would be easy for a user to attach the stuff to an existing or new mountain page, perhaps one with no content, then delete the page and have all the photos remain. Probably not worth spending time to develop unless you also develop a way to prevent such an easy reach-around. (or is it end-around?)

mrchad9 wrote:

Bob Sihler wrote:If we were to look at changing the editing options, I think we would need to solicit a lot of member feedback and give ample time for it before making a major change like that.

Bob I think that is what Matt was asking for someone to do.

Okay, I'll think up a way to introduce it and post it in a sticky thread after the weekend. Maybe send a global PM as well and encourage members to chime in.

I was just thinking, and maybe a global PM does it, that you need to get the attention of currently contributing folks who aren't following forums so much like Dow, ZeeJay, Liba, Noondueler, Marc, Bubba, Sarah, etc...

I would also hope that the opinions of folks like that are considered more carefully than those without contributions.

mrchad9 wrote:I would also hope that the opinions of folks like that are considered more carefully than those without contributions.

They will be, though no legit member will be treated as voiceless.

Bob Sihler wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:I would also hope that the opinions of folks like that are considered more carefully than those without contributions.

They will be, though no legit member will be treated as voiceless.

Make sure to send a 'special' message to all the climbers please. Their opinion is valued more

Matt, thanks for your support, it makes sense to continue thinking about this knowing that you are watching and thinking about it too.

I'll update the "Collaborative Summitpost" article to include everything I see or people tell me about. Everybody can add comments to the page and they'll be integrated judiciously. I don't want to leave Matt with a big laundry list of "features" to muddy up the site. We should keep working on it so that the collaborative idea can be integrated with just a few page changes (meaning, no "bells and whistles").

One interesting question centers around defaults. What should the default for page sections be? Taking on the role of temporary feature owner, I'd argue that defaults on new pages are to be public. For the collaborative aspect to be meaningful, the user needs to expect that "often" or "most of the time," they have the chance to edit a page. If the default is locked down, then only a handful of us "activists" will open our pages. If the default is open, then we can justify the use of publicity to announce this as a major deal. Naturally, some page creators will opt out (and some of the best too). We need to respect that. Maybe it could be a site preference, that my page sections are by default open, or by default closed. If we decide to set the default to closed, we should have an advertising blurb on the edit page extolling the benefits of open access (ie, your page becomes an investment that improves even though you don't do anything).

Also, what about existing pages. Almost every "important" mountain in the world is covered. If we announce the feature without making sure that there is a path to expose editing on existing pages then it'll seem like a tempest in a teapot. But it's absolutely necessary to get page owners permission of course. For example, I'd like to go through my existing mountain/route pages (not that I have many!) and open them all up except for the Intro/Overview section, like Bob. Doing this one by one would be a major pain for owners of many properties.

Thanks,
--Michael

By the way, maybe the restriction on Bulk Upload to albums doesn't have to be so difficult. Maybe we just prevent creating new albums. Done. That way Matt doesn't have to "protect" against adding pictures to albums, and the bulk uploader doesn't need to try to restrict anything...the album type just dies.

Another thing is that we could say, when you bulk upload you must attach the pictures to a mountain, route or TR. This is in keeping with the idea that the site should focus on mountains and routes.

Thanks,
--m

sjarelkwint wrote:btw ain't technical climbers going to add a huge amount of ass-shots because that's not what we want on summitpost i hope!

I suggest an exception for good-looking women.

mvs wrote:By the way, maybe the restriction on Bulk Upload to albums doesn't have to be so difficult. Maybe we just prevent creating new albums. Done. That way Matt doesn't have to "protect" against adding pictures to albums, and the bulk uploader doesn't need to try to restrict anything...the album type just dies.

Another thing is that we could say, when you bulk upload you must attach the pictures to a mountain, route or TR. This is in keeping with the idea that the site should focus on mountains and routes.

Thanks,
--m

I'm thinking we may just want to leave pictures and albums alone. As mrchad9 pointed out, people will find ways around it, anyway. Besides, it probably wouldn't be fair to restrict those who actually make nice albums, like this one today: http://www.summitpost.org/vulture-workshop/755081

Bob Sihler wrote:

sjarelkwint wrote:btw ain't technical climbers going to add a huge amount of ass-shots because that's not what we want on summitpost i hope!

I suggest an exception for good-looking women.

Oh yes!

Summitpost.com

Information provided by members to help anyone interested in gaining the summit....no matter how hard or easy.

I value all the information presented here on SP whether it comes from a technical climber or the weekend warrior.

We all have different interests and goals when it comes to the outdoors and mountaineering. To some, it's pure peakbagging often involving the easiest route on peaks; to others it's the technical climb itself. I respect all types of people on SP and tolerate differences between the "climbers" and people like me who have the goal to stand on as many summits as possible.

As long as you're doing what you like to do it's cool.

I also understand the frustration represented by the OP. When I first became a member I also thought that route pages were designed for "technical" routes on peaks and naturally I haven't made many route pages.