But the problem is that many people don't use the additions and corrections. I admit that I sometimes don't either. I have wrote at least a few before. Remember Redwic when we went up the Southwest Face of Dragontail Peak when we had a little bit of navigation troubles? It's possible that if people where able to add on pages as Mvs says, we might have gotten the beta that would have made it easier. I personally feel as though the route beta factor (and good photography) is the most important part of this site.
But that is basically my point. This is basically an issue with how people are, not how the website is. People need to be pro-active, whether it be with contributions and revision requests, or just making and maintaining pages.
Just my two cents. But I certainly appreciate the dialogue on this subject. Perhaps it will lead to bigger and better things.
Thanks for your comments Redwic, I've integrated them to the text. To oversimplify, sounds like Josh and I are "bullish" and you are "bearish" on the subject. Your point of view will either prevail completely or make the final result stronger. It's win-win, man :D.
I see two issues with the current "Additions and Corrections" feautre (well three, really).
0. I've never noticed it before. It's fairly well hidden compared to the text in the article. The proposal would allow changes to the article, so you wouldn't need to look for corrections in some other place; they're already there when you read the text.
1. It makes things more personal than they need to be. Instead of some dude's bad grammar just magically being fixed after a couple of days, we get "I accuse the author of not being able to write coherent english". A lot of people don't feel comfortable saying that straight to someone's face, but might feel comfortable correcting mistakes silently.
2. With inactive authors, the changes will never make it into the article, and we'll always have to check the A&C section to know if we're missing out. The proposal allows the article to stay up to date, even when the author stops caring for it.
So maybe we can't change the way people are, but we can change the system to make it easier for people to produce good pages.
We are all in this together! (In theory)
Nothing wrong with good, healthy conversation to try to achieve a greater good. The forum is having a good thread about this subject right now, too.
Definitely agree, I'm rather proud of how this process has worked out. There was some criticism that this whole thing was Design by Committee, which we can all feel "yuck" about, but I push back on that because it's the only process we've got. Better to exercise it rather than just complaining.
And Guhj, clearly you are a programmer, starting your numbers at 0.! :D
ExcitableBoy - Oct 23, 2011 12:52 pm - Voted 10/10
Well written
Very good analysis of the relevent issues. I love the proposol. I know many of my routes could definitely benenfit form updated information, particulartly photos.
A very well thought out proposal! I have hesitated to make route/mountain pages due to not enough of my own pictures or specific information even after climbing the route. I also have found pages that badly need more info that I am able to supply but I lack the means to do so. I like how this method would allow for monitored outside editing of pages without going for the wiki free-for-all method. I would be more than happy to switch my pages over to this kind of editing method.
Thanks Mountainjeff, my head has been in the same space. I've actually got a fair bit of information to share, but it doesn't come out in MOUNTAIN/ROUTE blocks. I do think it's useful, especially from a technical climbing perspective. Thanks again,
--Michael
Before saying goodbye, the technical climber you mention at the beginning complained that there's no separate SP file for technical routes, which get drowned in hill-walking stuff. He said, "Does it have to be documented under 'routes' ? (...) I understand some people are interested in hill walking only, that's fine, but could it have its own spot?"
Why not make such a technical spot then? Let's grant "Routes" to technical climbers only and ask/get the others (including myself) to re-class their route pages – by turning them into either "Mountain/Rock" pages or just "Albums" – or tuck them into their own mtn/rock pages.
Thanks Yatsek! I just took a look at routes, to see how many are in technical categories. Out of 10582 routes, there are 1669 that have a rock climbing YDS grade, the other 90% are non-technical. So there is a long tradition of talking about routes up a peak even though a rope isn't involved. We could talk about a category of "technical routes," which would just be a search on the rock grade field for non-empty records.
Oh no, don't talk about "Albums" here, they are a veritable powder keg o' controversy! :D Thanks for your comments,
--Michael
Just enjoying a problem-solving exercise:) All right Michael, how about re-classing all the albums (BTW I think you're being too harsh on SP albums, not all are "allbums" actually) as "Custom Objects" then? And featuring "Technical Routes" where "Albums" shows now?
Cheers,
Jacek
I agree, there should be a selection option for technical routes that have a YDS rating. I would think that would be easy to build a query for here on SP. Equally, some people love to just peak bag and hike so building catagories for them shouldn't be too hard. You could sort by Class like II, III, IV, 5.x - 5.x, etc. I used to only look for technical climbs but now I like to bag state and country highpoints regardless of the difficulty so I might search for just about anything here on SP.
These are good exercises to do! Let me just speak honestly, I never look at Albums, and they don't bother me a bit. But somehow, they always seem to come up as the bane of SP's existence when we gather around a forum campfire. I picture a bunch of geezers muttering "if only we hadn'tuh let those dag-blasted ALBUMS in!" :D Most saavy web users go into a site and look for what they are interested in. As long as they can find it, they don't care about the other stuff. Summitpost has pretty good search and category tools, I think.
Hiltrud pointed out something good on Bob's forum thread just now...Albums are collaborative...they are actually the most collaborative thing we have on SP. I didn't even know that, and it's interesting.
What Hiltrud says about Albums may be true but I don't think naming them e.g. Custom Objects would make them less collaborative. And it seems that part of the problem is that knowbacks keep on leaving. Anyway, I'm really glad you have stayed (although I hardly ever look at Technical Routes :)).
Does there need to be a strict hierarchy imposed on all "objects"? Do objects need to be of a certain "class"?
The Swedish site www.sverigeforaren.se is a swedish rock climbing equivalent of SP. It's entirely wikified, and it works quite well. Crags are tagged with the relevant tags, which allows the system to auto-generate lists of, for example, all overhanging crags in a certain region. Links between nearby crags (as in "if it's too hot, go to [other place] instead) are managed by editing the page.
I realise that this would be a major pain to implement on SP, but I think it's the direction to move, instead of maintaining a centrally controlled hierarchy, when there's a bottom-up way of letting it sort itself out.
Guhj, I was just trying to find some separate space for Technical Routes, also in the "Best Something" corner on the front page, which would probably require deleting an already existing category.
I would suggest that if a route description, major peak, or other popular page had not been updated in x amount of time it would revert to "open" for editing assuming the original author had abandoned the page. For instance, there are mountain and route descriptions for Idaho that have not been updated in 5 years other than photos and the summit log which are open.
Josh Lewis - Oct 23, 2011 4:56 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)But the problem is that many people don't use the additions and corrections. I admit that I sometimes don't either. I have wrote at least a few before. Remember Redwic when we went up the Southwest Face of Dragontail Peak when we had a little bit of navigation troubles? It's possible that if people where able to add on pages as Mvs says, we might have gotten the beta that would have made it easier. I personally feel as though the route beta factor (and good photography) is the most important part of this site.
Redwic - Oct 23, 2011 7:12 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)But that is basically my point. This is basically an issue with how people are, not how the website is. People need to be pro-active, whether it be with contributions and revision requests, or just making and maintaining pages.
Just my two cents. But I certainly appreciate the dialogue on this subject. Perhaps it will lead to bigger and better things.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 3:46 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)Thanks for your comments Redwic, I've integrated them to the text. To oversimplify, sounds like Josh and I are "bullish" and you are "bearish" on the subject. Your point of view will either prevail completely or make the final result stronger. It's win-win, man :D.
guhj - Oct 25, 2011 2:43 pm - Voted 9/10
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)I see two issues with the current "Additions and Corrections" feautre (well three, really).
0. I've never noticed it before. It's fairly well hidden compared to the text in the article. The proposal would allow changes to the article, so you wouldn't need to look for corrections in some other place; they're already there when you read the text.
1. It makes things more personal than they need to be. Instead of some dude's bad grammar just magically being fixed after a couple of days, we get "I accuse the author of not being able to write coherent english". A lot of people don't feel comfortable saying that straight to someone's face, but might feel comfortable correcting mistakes silently.
2. With inactive authors, the changes will never make it into the article, and we'll always have to check the A&C section to know if we're missing out. The proposal allows the article to stay up to date, even when the author stops caring for it.
So maybe we can't change the way people are, but we can change the system to make it easier for people to produce good pages.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 3:11 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)Guhj, I never thought about your point one above but that is brilliant...very true.
Redwic - Oct 25, 2011 9:53 pm - Voted 10/10
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)We are all in this together! (In theory)
Nothing wrong with good, healthy conversation to try to achieve a greater good. The forum is having a good thread about this subject right now, too.
mvs - Oct 26, 2011 4:42 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Not Sold On The Idea (Yet)Definitely agree, I'm rather proud of how this process has worked out. There was some criticism that this whole thing was Design by Committee, which we can all feel "yuck" about, but I push back on that because it's the only process we've got. Better to exercise it rather than just complaining.
And Guhj, clearly you are a programmer, starting your numbers at 0.! :D
ExcitableBoy - Oct 23, 2011 12:52 pm - Voted 10/10
Well writtenVery good analysis of the relevent issues. I love the proposol. I know many of my routes could definitely benenfit form updated information, particulartly photos.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 3:44 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Well writtenThanks for your energy ExcitableBoy, you are certainly one of the endangered Technical Climbers! :)
Mountainjeff - Oct 23, 2011 4:51 pm - Voted 10/10
Great Idea!A very well thought out proposal! I have hesitated to make route/mountain pages due to not enough of my own pictures or specific information even after climbing the route. I also have found pages that badly need more info that I am able to supply but I lack the means to do so. I like how this method would allow for monitored outside editing of pages without going for the wiki free-for-all method. I would be more than happy to switch my pages over to this kind of editing method.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 4:15 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Great Idea!Thanks Mountainjeff, my head has been in the same space. I've actually got a fair bit of information to share, but it doesn't come out in MOUNTAIN/ROUTE blocks. I do think it's useful, especially from a technical climbing perspective. Thanks again,
--Michael
yatsek - Oct 23, 2011 6:42 pm - Hasn't voted
First and foremost,Before saying goodbye, the technical climber you mention at the beginning complained that there's no separate SP file for technical routes, which get drowned in hill-walking stuff. He said, "Does it have to be documented under 'routes' ? (...) I understand some people are interested in hill walking only, that's fine, but could it have its own spot?"
Why not make such a technical spot then? Let's grant "Routes" to technical climbers only and ask/get the others (including myself) to re-class their route pages – by turning them into either "Mountain/Rock" pages or just "Albums" – or tuck them into their own mtn/rock pages.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 4:18 am - Hasn't voted
Re: First and foremost,Thanks Yatsek! I just took a look at routes, to see how many are in technical categories. Out of 10582 routes, there are 1669 that have a rock climbing YDS grade, the other 90% are non-technical. So there is a long tradition of talking about routes up a peak even though a rope isn't involved. We could talk about a category of "technical routes," which would just be a search on the rock grade field for non-empty records.
Oh no, don't talk about "Albums" here, they are a veritable powder keg o' controversy! :D Thanks for your comments,
--Michael
yatsek - Oct 25, 2011 6:47 am - Hasn't voted
Re: First and foremost,Just enjoying a problem-solving exercise:) All right Michael, how about re-classing all the albums (BTW I think you're being too harsh on SP albums, not all are "allbums" actually) as "Custom Objects" then? And featuring "Technical Routes" where "Albums" shows now?
Cheers,
Jacek
reboyles - Oct 25, 2011 7:45 am - Voted 10/10
Re: First and foremost,I agree, there should be a selection option for technical routes that have a YDS rating. I would think that would be easy to build a query for here on SP. Equally, some people love to just peak bag and hike so building catagories for them shouldn't be too hard. You could sort by Class like II, III, IV, 5.x - 5.x, etc. I used to only look for technical climbs but now I like to bag state and country highpoints regardless of the difficulty so I might search for just about anything here on SP.
mvs - Oct 25, 2011 8:12 am - Hasn't voted
Re: First and foremost,These are good exercises to do! Let me just speak honestly, I never look at Albums, and they don't bother me a bit. But somehow, they always seem to come up as the bane of SP's existence when we gather around a forum campfire. I picture a bunch of geezers muttering "if only we hadn'tuh let those dag-blasted ALBUMS in!" :D Most saavy web users go into a site and look for what they are interested in. As long as they can find it, they don't care about the other stuff. Summitpost has pretty good search and category tools, I think.
Hiltrud pointed out something good on Bob's forum thread just now...Albums are collaborative...they are actually the most collaborative thing we have on SP. I didn't even know that, and it's interesting.
yatsek - Oct 25, 2011 12:58 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: First and foremost,What Hiltrud says about Albums may be true but I don't think naming them e.g. Custom Objects would make them less collaborative. And it seems that part of the problem is that knowbacks keep on leaving. Anyway, I'm really glad you have stayed (although I hardly ever look at Technical Routes :)).
guhj - Oct 25, 2011 2:58 pm - Voted 9/10
Re: First and foremost,Does there need to be a strict hierarchy imposed on all "objects"? Do objects need to be of a certain "class"?
The Swedish site www.sverigeforaren.se is a swedish rock climbing equivalent of SP. It's entirely wikified, and it works quite well. Crags are tagged with the relevant tags, which allows the system to auto-generate lists of, for example, all overhanging crags in a certain region. Links between nearby crags (as in "if it's too hot, go to [other place] instead) are managed by editing the page.
I realise that this would be a major pain to implement on SP, but I think it's the direction to move, instead of maintaining a centrally controlled hierarchy, when there's a bottom-up way of letting it sort itself out.
yatsek - Oct 26, 2011 2:36 am - Hasn't voted
Re: First and foremost,Guhj, I was just trying to find some separate space for Technical Routes, also in the "Best Something" corner on the front page, which would probably require deleting an already existing category.
reboyles - Oct 24, 2011 10:58 pm - Voted 10/10
Old ContentI would suggest that if a route description, major peak, or other popular page had not been updated in x amount of time it would revert to "open" for editing assuming the original author had abandoned the page. For instance, there are mountain and route descriptions for Idaho that have not been updated in 5 years other than photos and the summit log which are open.