|
|
Forums:
Rockclimbing.com:
Suggestions & Feedback:
Re: [jt512] Response to 12/13 announcement:
Edit Log
|
|
ddt
Dec 13, 2006, 6:51 PM
Views: 2540
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)
|
|
|
Edit Log:
|
|
Post edited by ddt
() on Dec 13, 2006, 6:54 PM: spelliing
|
|
|
|
|
|
