|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 13, 2006, 8:30 AM
Post #1 of 29
(2610 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
ddt wrote: Hi everyone, Some quick updates regarding changes we are making based on user feedback. Some of these are already implemented, and other we expect to roll out within the next few days: 1. We are opening the routes database for new route submissions without validation, as a first step in the process of making it easier for users to submit information. Modifications to routes will still require review and approval for now because we don't have the necessary functionality to prevent loss of "good" data. Also, the addition of regions, areas and sections still require manual intervention from editors until we've completed the functionality that would allow users to make these updates directly. 2. We will open the Injuries and Accidents forum to guest users. From your feedback it is clear that unwanted media attention is not a major concern. We agree that it should not be a hassle for family members and friends (who might not be registred on rc.com) to access this forum. A few other issues that were recently fixed: * Video upload problems were fixed * The Forum spell checker no longer crashes IE * The issues with embedding photos in articles were fixed * The ratings display of videos and articles were fixed * The ability for users to delete their comments on photos (will soon follow for videos and articles) See my previous update for more information about our other priorities and the remaining list of items we are currently focusing on. Daniel PS: Since this post is in the announcements forum you won't be able to reply to it here. Please use the regular forums to share your thoughts and questions and continue to share your feedback.
Now, just a reminder to put the killfiles (PM and forum) on the hot list, if they're not already there.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 13, 2006, 3:27 PM
Post #2 of 29
(2579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
climbsomething wrote: Now, just a reminder to put the killfiles (PM and forum) on the hot list, if they're not already there.
They're on the list, Hills.
|
|
|
|
|
tallnik
Dec 13, 2006, 5:11 PM
Post #3 of 29
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2004
Posts: 595
|
Just wanted to say that I also approve the changes, and am glad to see all the people involved with rc.com working so hard!
Thanks!
Cheers,
Nik
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 13, 2006, 6:07 PM
Post #4 of 29
(2542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
ddt wrote: 1. We are opening the routes database for new route submissions without validation, as a first step in the process of making it easier for users to submit information.
Good.
In reply to: Modifications to routes will still require review and approval for now because we don't have the necessary functionality to prevent loss of "good" data.
I understand the concern about loss of "good" data. Now, while some data is obviously good, what about data whose goodness isn't so clear: how will the area managers determine whether to approve a user's proposed change? For example, I'm currently working a route that is listed in the RDB as 5.12d, but based on my early runs, I suspect that it is really 5.12c. I won't know for sure until I redpoint it, but if after redpointing it I think it is 5.12c, I intend to submit the corrected rating. Will this correction be accepted or not, and how will the area manager, whom I know for a fact has not climbed this route, make the determination?
In reply to: 2. We will open the Injuries and Accidents forum to guest users. From your feedback it is clear that unwanted media attention is not a major concern. We agree that it should not be a hassle for family members and friends (who might not be registred on rc.com) to access this forum.
Excellent. Thanks for listening.
While I know you can't get to everything at once, let me reiterate that the forums are still very cumbersome to use, and I hope you will make it a priority to make them more user-friendly. I have made scattered posts stating certain problems specifically, but there are others I have subsequently discovered. When I get a chance, I will try to compile them all into a single post.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Dec 13, 2006, 6:30 PM
Post #5 of 29
(2532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Jay, to me that illustrates exactly why such changes should be subject to approval. I'm glad you made easy work of it, but IMO, route ratings should never change based on the experience of one person. Areas have consensus ratings, and yet they're listed differently on RC.com all the time. Historically, that's been one of my least favorite aspects of the RDB.
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Dec 13, 2006, 6:51 PM
Post #6 of 29
(2525 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
jt512 wrote: In reply to: Modifications to routes will still require review and approval for now because we don't have the necessary functionality to prevent loss of "good" data. I understand the concern about loss of "good" data. Now, while some data is obviously good, what about data whose goodness isn't so clear: how will the area managers determine whether to approve a user's proposed change? For example, I'm currently working a route that is listed in the RDB as 5.12d, but based on my early runs, I suspect that it is really 5.12c. I won't know for sure until I redpoint it, but if after redpointing it I think it is 5.12c, I intend to submit the corrected rating. Will this correction be accepted or not, and how will the area manager, whom I know for a fact has not climbed this route, make the determination?
Jay, while this might not answer your (very valid) question completely, it might provide some general thinking and guidelines within which I hope we can manage this. I'm not saying "this is THE WAY"... if people have more thoughts or ideas, let's hear them.
* My hope (expectation) is that routes editors will mainly deny modification submissions that are obvious attempts to sabotage good data (e.g. replace seemingly good descriptions with gibberish), or are clearly suspect for some reason (maybe suspicious changes to names of first ascentionists?) I don't know if these will ever be big issues. Maybe my examples aren't even valid. All I'm saying is that there is some mechanism to prevent someone with a grudge against another user, or the site for that matter, to come in and start vandalizing things. This has happened before.
* If it's a seemingly innocent change in the route's attributes (e.g. name change / correction, updated description of protection, even difficulty update), editors should just let them go through, especially if they have no intimate knowledge of the route or area. If this causes some attributes to be incorrectly changed, I hope someone can point it out and we can correct it without much hassle.
* In addition to the above, bear in mind that we still have the "direct field-level update" function that allows anyone to put a value in a blank field (e.g. safety rating, first ascentionist) without having to submit a complete route modification and wait for approval.
* Finally, your specific example (route difficulty), being such a subjective thing anyway, may be better handled through the functionality we have provided allowing ANY user to say what they think the difficulty is, and then calculating the "consensus" value. Granted, this is far from perfect and one should take the "consensus" value with a grain of salt. Also, this functionality only exists within the context of ascents. Nevertheless, users can look through the ascents to see who gave the route what grade, and then form an opinion for themselves.
In reply to: While I know you can't get to everything at once, let me reiterate that the forums are still very cumbersome to use, and I hope you will make it a priority to make them more user-friendly. I have made scattered posts stating certain problems specifically, but there are others I have subsequently discovered. When I get a chance, I will try to compile them all into a single post.
Thanks Jay.
Daniel
(This post was edited by ddt on Dec 13, 2006, 6:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 13, 2006, 7:07 PM
Post #7 of 29
(2519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
j_ung wrote: Jay, to me that illustrates exactly why such changes should be subject to approval. I'm glad you made easy work of it, but IMO, route ratings should never change based on the experience of one person. Areas have consensus ratings...
The website needs to decide what the rating in the RDB should be: a consensus rating? the rating listed in the guidebook? the rating given by the first ascentionist? something else I haven't thought of?
Now, assuming they want a consensus rating, what is the best way to go about getting it? Not allowing users to change the listed rating seems to imply that the listed rating is the consensus rating, or is at least more likely to be the consensus rating than a change submitted by a user. I challenge this assumption.
I'll admit I threw out a red herring by withholding some information from my earlier post. In fact, I'm not the only climber who suspects that 12c would be a more appropriate rating. Furthermore, I think that 12c is actually the rating given in the latest guidebook. On the other hand, the current guidebook is full of inaccuracies. However, my impression is that the consensus rating is more like 12c than 12d; I just wanted to confirm it for myself after redpointing it before submitting the change.
But I left out these additional details intentionally, because they are precisely the sort of details that an area manager would not be privy to. Thus, unless the manager has climbed the route or knows people who have, he has no criteria whatsoever to decide whether the old rating or the proposed new rating is more accurate. The user submitting the rating will usually have more information on which to base the rating than the area manager.
You are assuming (in part maybe because I used leading language) that users will tend to submit grade changes based solely on their subjective experience of the climb. I challenge this assumption, too. I think most climbers know that ratings are subjective, and that their own experience on the route is not likely to represent consensus. I think we can rely on climbers to change ratings only when they believe the current rating to not reflect consensus. We could even make that clear on the ratings form: "Do not change the rating just because the route felt easier/harder to you. Change it only if you know that the listed rating does not reflect the consensus of local climbers."
I propose that if you want the ratings to be consensus ratings (or the number of bolts, or any other information), that the Wiki model will be the most efficacious model to follow. If somebody changes a rating spuriously, it'll get changed back. If the rating keeps getting changed back and forth, then a manager can step in, contract the parties, and settle the dispute.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Dec 13, 2006, 7:10 PM
Post #8 of 29
(2517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
actually, you do get a consesus rating if you put the grade you believe the climb should have when you submit the ascent.
actually, i think that there should be two ratings... the one from the guidebook (which is usually the FA rating, unless they were way off) and the consensus.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Dec 13, 2006, 7:12 PM
Post #9 of 29
(2515 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
overlord wrote: actually, you do get a consesus rating if you put the grade you believe the climb should have when you submit the ascent. actually, i think that there should be two ratings... the one from the guidebook (which is usually the FA rating, unless they were way off) and the consensus.
Hmm, that's not a bad idea.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
ddt
Dec 13, 2006, 7:31 PM
Post #10 of 29
(2506 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 2304
|
jt512 wrote: overlord wrote: actually, you do get a consesus rating if you put the grade you believe the climb should have when you submit the ascent. actually, i think that there should be two ratings... the one from the guidebook (which is usually the FA rating, unless they were way off) and the consensus. Hmm, that's not a bad idea. Jay
This is exactly how it's working right now. The "guidebook" rating is shown in the route's title, and the "consensus" rating, calculated from all the ascents, is shown in the box called "consensus ratings".
Edited to add: Here's an example of where they are different: http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._Wall/_Misty_17.html
DDT
(This post was edited by ddt on Dec 13, 2006, 7:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Dec 15, 2006, 7:01 PM
Post #11 of 29
(2425 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
thanks for the Send PM link under the name. More user friendly than to have to go through the profile.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Dec 15, 2006, 8:59 PM
Post #12 of 29
(2414 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
It did used to say "Wasilla, Alaska" which was nice. I dunno, what does everyone else think? Just states, or is it useful to know cities?
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Dec 15, 2006, 9:27 PM
Post #13 of 29
(2406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
But you have to say Palmer right now, haven't you!? I think it makes sense though for a foreigner like me it's enough (but thinking about t, for a Californian or a Utard, I would find nice to know the city or even the Church! Next step?
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Dec 15, 2006, 9:35 PM
Post #14 of 29
(2401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
thomasribiere wrote: But you have to say Palmer right now, haven't you!? I think it makes sense though for a foreigner like me it's enough (but thinking about t, for a Californian or a Utard, I would find nice to know the city or even the Church! Next step?
Eh, I'm somewhere inbetween Palmer and Wasilla. ;) Alaska is such a huge land area, that someone from "Alaska" can easily be from a place I've never been to that's hundreds of miles in any direction. I'm just wondering if anyone else has the same issue.  It's certainly not hard to check the profile whenever I see an "Alaska" tag, so it's no big deal, it's just the way it used to be.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Dec 15, 2006, 9:41 PM
Post #15 of 29
(2400 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
coldclimb wrote: Just states, or is it useful to know cities?
It Depends. (tm)
I'd think that for some states (say, Connecticut) just having the state would be enough. I mean, kee-riest, how big is that state, anyway? 5500 square miles or something? Pffffft. Phoenix is bigger than that.
Now places like California (which, if doubled in size, would be less than HALF the size of your Alaska, ColdClimb,) could probably be well served by city/state. Heck, you could divide Cali into "North", "Central", "South", and "Freakish and Weird Orange Country nutcase", and that'd still leave large populations in each.
I suppose in the long run, it'd be better to have city and state. I'd like that functionality. Then, too, how damn hard is it to shoot someone a PM and say "So, noticed you're from Iowa. Wanna get together, chew tobacco, wrestle some pigs, and wish we were climbing?"
(This post was edited by reno on Dec 17, 2006, 2:03 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
the_mitt
Dec 15, 2006, 11:59 PM
Post #16 of 29
(2383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 279
|
I actually really like the way it is now. The pm is cool, and I like just the state and country.
Mitt
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Dec 17, 2006, 1:07 AM
Post #17 of 29
(2345 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
the_mitt wrote: I actually really like the way it is now. The pm is cool, and I like just the state and country. Mitt
yeah, maybe if you live in a small state. But someone living in 'California' means next to nothing. I like having the city, so I can identify local climbers for partner recruitment, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 17, 2006, 2:15 AM
Post #18 of 29
(2339 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
Even Arizona is pretty spread out. I live in Flag, which is about 5 hours from Tucson and 2 from Phoenix (on a good day) and all have totally different climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 17, 2006, 2:19 AM
Post #19 of 29
(2336 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
I agree with hillary.. Should be town/city , state how about places in canada.. what are you going to say.. quebec, canada.. place is freaking huge.. like the whole US east coast
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Dec 17, 2006, 9:19 AM
Post #20 of 29
(2320 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Or how about making it based on the info in the "I am from:" box in editing your profile, so we can make it say whatever we want, like "In a van, down by the river"?
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Dec 17, 2006, 10:47 PM
Post #21 of 29
(2295 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Hmmm, Queensland is pretty big too, it takes me 30 hours of driving to go from one end of the state to the other.
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Dec 18, 2006, 12:39 AM
Post #22 of 29
(2289 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
coldclimb wrote: Or how about making it based on the info in the "I am from:" box in editing your profile, so we can make it say whatever we want, like "In a van, down by the river"?
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Dec 18, 2006, 2:49 AM
Post #23 of 29
(2276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
climbsomething wrote: coldclimb wrote: Or how about making it based on the info in the "I am from:" box in editing your profile, so we can make it say whatever we want, like "In a van, down by the river"? You mean, the way it used to be...
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Dec 18, 2006, 3:26 AM
Post #24 of 29
(2270 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Nope. you could put whatever you wanted in the location field
the paying members could make their own label.. like Older Than Dirt.. blah blah instead of Hippy.. Sport climber.. boulderer whatever the post count labels were.
|
|
|
|
|
the_mitt
Dec 18, 2006, 4:34 AM
Post #25 of 29
(2263 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 279
|
Older than dirt wasn't that curts tag :)
Mitt
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
