According to the poll of the user base, it's because they're all afraid of Jay.

So they fled to the protective womb of Supertopo.

Who does everybody think would make good, impartial, diligent moderators? I'm curious.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.

After a review of the last 250 posts made by all the moderators I could think of, I have a suggestion.

Fenix83 hasn't posted since 2009 so I won't count him.

Epoch, Macherry, Edge, Climbs4fun & Bondegecko post almost exclusively in the "Community" and "Rockclimbing.com" forums (AKA the nonclimbing related forums). In several cases, only 1 in 25 of their posts are outside of those areas.

Philbox does much better with roughly 1 post in the climbing forums for every 5 in the nonclimbing related forums. And Wonderwoman dominated with 1/2 of all her posting being done in the climbing related forums.

So perhaps you could try to draw from the small pool of longterm posters who post more more frequently, or even exclusively in the climbing related forums. Might add a different perspective to the moderating mix while also boosting your numbers.

Check out the post I just made in the SPCI. It's got actual numbers on bunches of random users. Blondgecko is actually doing quite well at 60% non-campground posts.

So, what site is?

Jay

Hey, sungam is a long term user! AND he posts in both!

I'm on the same page as Jay on this one.

If there is another better site for such content, I'd like to know about it.

I don't really have time for this, but the basic problem is contained in J's phrase, "technical climbing issues." I see that as part of the problem, rather than the solution, because I think the basic avenue of approach to "technical climbing issues" here is actually part of the n00b issue.

So let me break this into two parts. The first is a basic response to a version of that question, which is, what climbing sites do you prefer for climbing-related content, if we set aside questions of format or whether i like the mods or whatever.

if i am wanting to think about alpinism (esp. in the us), whether glacier travel systems, the current status of mixed fas, current arguments over axes or changing glacial conditions or whatever, i'd go to cascadeclimbers.

if i'm wanting to think about anything involving sierras or free-wallclimbing or hauling systems or high-angle rescue or dealing with the transition from aid-to-free routes or most anything haveing to do with what could pass in amateur circles as history, i go to st.

if i am wanting anything about uk and europe (or one-stop for best editorial content) in english, first stop is ukc.

if i'm looking for 1 stop into on routes, weather, logistics and technical data for a lot of different ranges, i still go 1st to SP, despite the recent unpleasantness.

If I'm looking for stuff on climbing-specific training I'd go to any of a number of different sites.

But you get the idea: There is basically nothing, no topic, on which I would 1st go to rc.com. Not even baking, gardening, or pets.

Again, each of tehse sites has a culture very different from here, most of them have different revenue models, and only UKC and probably SP have similar or better metrics. But that, too, probably tells us something.

I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

GO

How does the lab now compare to whatever Aric's site is doing?

...I could careless how many post someone has, I try to look at the content. In most cases, those with highest post counts seems the most lost to me...

...Has anyone thought of asking people like John Gill, John Long, or Rich Goldstone why they don't post on here as often as they used to? They are all still pretty prevalent on other sites.

Gill posts very rarely on any site anymore . . .
Curt

Pay attention. He was run off the site by me and Burt Bronson.

Jay

Also... I think that often posters have a life cycle on sites. I don't think this site is very informative any more.... <snip> Maybe that's why cracklover's friends bailed, because there was no new meaningful content.

What it boils down to is that the maturity level of the discourse was so low as to make it an unpleasant experience to participate. Noobs giving bad advice, people being rude to each other, a large and vocal group who treat the whole site and the posts in it as a big joke for their amusement.

And to top it all off, there were the frequent changes (seemingly every couple of years) in management, with major (and sometimes not fully implemented) site changes, new draconian restrictions on content and inline images, fights amongst the moderators resulting in mass layoffs....

The whole package left a bad taste in the mouth and these guys had limited patience for juvenile BS. Especially since they could be (and now are) spending their time online with people who respect them - at other climbing sites.

but, if they're only going to PM him, and not either contribute something worthwhile, or at least complain to a mod who could potentially but won't do something, I guess they don't get a vote.

I wouldn't disagree with anything substantive in your post, but you missed the point. What Jay and I are referring to as "technical" is the sort of stuff you'd find in "The Lab" forum here.

So I still think this technical arena is one area in which RC.com is above any of those other sites.

. . . totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

So link some recent examples that we could take over to st or ukc and persuade the crowds there to revise their judgment of rc.

I can only think of two: the work done in the aliens meltdown thread (s). and maybe certain of the threads in the accidents forum, where heavy moderation seems really useful.