|
dingus
Jul 13, 2006, 4:44 PM
Post #26 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus in order to tell me I have or haven't changed or even know where I stand on any particular issue, you would need to have the slightest clue as to what I am all about. You don't, and no amount of pretending will make it so.
Point taken. I'll eat my crow. I'd rather see whack-a-mole moderation to what was here in your time though. Now please pass that ketchup roughster, crow by itself is a little gamey.
Cheers ya bastard!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 13, 2006, 6:26 PM
Post #27 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I'm not keeping score Dingus, just surprised to see you waffle on something that was always such an almighty and unbending core tenant of your paranoia.
Its very simple roughster. This site doesn't own my words, nor do the volunteers. If they want to own them they need to buiy them. This site lives off freely submitted contributions. I've seen some mountaineering sites built 100% from user input, where user copyright and data ownership are respected. Users can leave and take their marbles with them. To my way of thinking that's how you run an open source site.
DMT
ps. I know it seems like paranoia to you, but I saw the results of human mods. Had these mods exercised some restraint I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. The climate of rc.com has improved markedly since auto moderation replaced the nannys.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jul 14, 2006, 6:38 AM
Post #28 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
man, i REALLY miss some of those ppl. especially rrradam and passthepitonspete. i was really sad to see them go.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Jul 14, 2006, 3:55 PM
Post #29 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: I'm not keeping score Dingus, just surprised to see you waffle on something that was always such an almighty and unbending core tenant of your paranoia. Most of the times it is seems like you would cease to exist if there weren't evil moderators to fear. You know doing silly stuff like removing posts and comments like, " f--- your momma!!!!!!" over and over. And lets not forget this was when moderators were tasked to do exactly that by the Admins... Now that you have joined the rank and file, who will fight the good fight? Who misconstrue the obvious and point it out to the stupid? Who will rally against the people who actually made the site worth visiting? DDT should be wondering why the content of the site has gone down hill to be absolutely a joke and yet people like Dingus remain as active as ever.
This post is totally insane.
Content gone downhill, eh? In YOUR (worthless) opinion maybe.
People like Arno and sterlingjim are not on that OLD list, they didn't even start really psoting til fairly recently in terms of the site starting, yet they do a lot to make this site worthy.
Rgold is not on the list.
Karl baba and Brutus of Wyde are not on the list.
Healeyje is not on the list.
Subtle is not on the list.
There are a lot more I can't think of right now, but you get the idea.
These guys may not have a million posts, or a lot of photos, and they don't start a lot of threads, but when they do post is it worthy, and they contribute far more than most of the people on that old list.
NOW, rc.com in it's heyday???? Give me a break, rc.com has not hit its heyday yet.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 14, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #30 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: This site doesn't own my words, nor do the volunteers. If they want to own them they need to buy them. This site lives off freely submitted contributions.
No argument here. I've always maintained that was the case; in the instances where users were functionally prevented from editing or redacting their input, I have made the necessary changes to bring the software into line with user expectations. Daniel and his wife, perhaps more than anyone else involved with the site, are acutely aware of the vagaries of copyright law, and no claim has been made that the site somehow 'owns' your works. That claim would be untenable in a court of law, and any decent lawyer would tear it to shreds. So this and the following statement strike me as straw men.
In reply to: I've seen some mountaineering sites built 100% from user input, where user copyright and data ownership are respected. Users can leave and take their marbles with them. To my way of thinking that's how you run an open source site.
I (heart) SummitPost too, but you can't realistically believe that your data is particularly safe over there. Try getting in touch with Josh, for example. Furthermore, I'd like to see some concrete examples where, as a matter of policy (rather than technical impediment), the sites have diverged on the matter. We are obligated and bound by law to respect user copyrights.
At every opportunity along the way, I (and others involved with managing the site) have taken steps to strengthen authors' sole control over the text of their posts, articles, and photographs, whilst removing temptations for anyone else to interfere with the works. The decision is reduced to a judgement call -- shall we pay the bandwidth costs to re-publish this item, or is it in conflict with the goals of the site? This is no different from the decisions made by SuperTopo or SummitPost. Trolls there get no more respect than trolls here; it is intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Aaron (roughster) put a lot of energy into improving the site, its tenor, and documenting the routes he developed. For that reason alone, you might give his argument some weight. Nonetheless, Aaron is mistaken if he believes that the tools for a moderator to change the visibility of posts, threads, and photographs, or to merge and split collective works in a rational way, have been diminished. If anything, they have been expanded, to permit finer-grained control over the actions taken. Perhaps this contributes to the less visible nature of moderation. Threads can be marked as "do not echo to the front page", split, merged with similar topics, or their collective title changed without affecting the content -- these actions do not provoke the sort of outcry that more heavy-handed interference traditionally has. (Users who claim they possess a divine right for their works to be republished on our tab are sorely mistaken. Please do take your marbles elsewhere if you must make that claim -- there are plenty of free blog services on the Web.)
The perceived lack of moderation is mostly a result of scale; we have enormously more users today than even a year ago, to say nothing of the explosion of new users and content that took place between 2002 and 2005. Meanwhile the ranks of the moderators have not increased apace with growth. One approach which I have proposed is randomly handing the controls to a sample of the top-ranked contributors, beginning with the forums and perhaps expanding elsewhere, to do with as they please, simply because, as a proxy for the overall tenor of the user base, they may well know what's best. In addition, since all of their actions are audited and reversible (just like regular moderators), there are no long-term ramifications that can't be undone. In my view, the major benefit of this strategy would be greater user self-interest, and better awareness of the balance between freewheeling chaos and stifled "high-quality" discourse that the site attempts to strike. As with vote allocation, the degree of uncertainty might help to motivate people to exercise their powers as they see fit, and of course the same feedback loop ("foo_bar deleted your thread Fucking Shitpiss!!!1" in the perpetrator's inbox, and so forth) exists as for appointed moderators in the current system. If nothing else, it would be interesting, and the allocation of mod priveleges is a once-a-day process so it wouldn't slow the site down any further than it already is.
Every so often I get an idea like this, and most of the time they turn out to be worthless, but once in a while something sticks (the tarpit, the user vote feedback loop, PM notification of moderator actions, and so on). At least as often, a user proposes something and it turns out to be a great idea. That's always been the primary impetus for progress on the site. (How else?!?)
You (Dingus) and Aaron (Roughster) represent the two sides of the coin -- is anarchy preferable to fascist autocracy? Both have their pluses and minuses; personally, I find that neither is an acceptable long-term solution for the majority of the site's visitors.
In reply to: ps. I know it seems like paranoia to you, but I saw the results of human mods. Had these mods exercised some restraint I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. The climate of rc.com has improved markedly since auto moderation replaced the nannys.
The climate may have improved, but the signal-to-noise ratio seems to have suffered a bit. If it were possible to address both concerns, this site might really hit its stride. My interest in the site (aside from a steady supply of alpine partners) has often centered on how to harness individual self-interest to better serve a common goal of increased information quality. (As I've often noted, I'd rather see a quality troll than inoffensive pablum.)
If we find something that ''works'', sustainably, that will be a major step.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 14, 2006, 5:12 PM
Post #31 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
tim
Thanks as always for the measured reponse.
Just a few comments:
1. I acknowledge roughsters considerable contributions to this site. He and I have a personal history that predates rc,com and it used to get in our way. He's cool (now that his finger is off the edit button)
2. There are many, many factors that affect signal to noise ratio.
3. You can be as autocratic as you want. The more of that you have, the more original content you will have to dream up yourselves or buy.
4. I'm not suggesting this site 'be like summitpost.' But I think the contrast is appropriate. A long time member there, ID irrelevant, put in ptpp amounts of work into building mountain pages. He was also had an irristable urge to troll and flame viciously. This led to numerous flame wars and long term grudges. Like has happened hear with a few prolific flame lords, he eventually deciced it was best to withdraw from the site.
When he departed he took his work with him. This was a butt load of work and it defintely 'hurt' the site when he deleted it. But management did not try to stop him, other than through the power of persuasion. The holes he left were adopted by others and life went on. But summitpost showed its true colors in tha moment, sticking to principle when it really counted.
Data safe? Safety isn't the issubuddy, control is the issue.
When folks like ptpp here were aked/decided to leave, they were either prevented or some significant obstacles were put in thier paths to prevent them from taking back what was theirs all along.
THAT ATTITUDE MUST DIE if you want to truly respect user owned data. When an admin presumed to edit ptpp's work while ptpp was prevented access, well that scared me and scarred me. Now we're past all that and things are much better.
But this thread didn't come about just because of the huge fall post. Not to point fingers but a prominent admin responded by saying we needed more accountability and we should stick by what we post, or words to that effect. It was just a statement of opinion on his part, but it was that management attitude to which I reacted.
Its still extremely difficult to withdraw data from this site.
Cheers
DMT
ps. Routes database, I think the SP model, with html page blanks and single adoption rights for particular areas, is the way to go forward.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 14, 2006, 7:05 PM
Post #32 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: In reply to: Gimmie a handjob, and we'll call it square! :boring: Ahahahahaha, too funny.
It would *really* have been funny coming from pinktricam.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jul 14, 2006, 7:53 PM
Post #33 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Please pardon the thread drift, but Dingus, I disagree that the ownership issue is the primary problem.
I think the low signal to noise ratio here these days is more to do with the fact that rc.com seems to have passed a tipping point of noob usership. It now seems that the only folks who feel comfortable are noobs, those who prey on them, and those who cater to them. Most other folks are slowly wandering away.
One exception: some of the communities. There are subtents here under the big tent that are thriving. Especially those that are not in direct competition with mountainproject (such as massclimbers and euroclimbers).
Just my $.02
Happy weekend everyone - be safe and get in lots-o-climbing!
GO
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jul 14, 2006, 9:27 PM
Post #34 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: ps. I know it seems like paranoia to you, but I saw the results of human mods. Had these mods exercised some restraint I wouldn't feel so strongly about it. The climate of rc.com has improved markedly since auto moderation replaced the nannys. Lets see if I can summarize RC as of late: Tightly moded site = Lots of good info, original posts, and easily the #1 climbing resource on the net. The Aholes were shot down immediately, the good content was left to shine. Code run site = Not a single thing worth reading in several months, and the number of good posts over the last year being able to be counted on one hand (hell you could even use someone who has lost one finger).
Respectfully, words cannot describe how vehemently I disagree with you.
In reply to: The useless and meaningless posts rule the roost, and it shows in a big way, since there may be good posts lurking in the heaping pile of feces but who has the time to wade through and find them??
It seems as though that is a direct contradiction to your first point. What, pray tell is an example of a good climbing site? A sawbuck says that if it had as many active users and posts per day as this one, it would be worse.
In reply to: The people who MADE this site worth visiting are either gone or leaving. Go back and look at RC in its heyday. It was always a few people putting out the quality material and those same people who were filtering out the crap that runs rampant now on the front page.
Here you go.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...he_rock_warriors_way
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...ety_test_discussions
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/photo_list.php
http://www.rockclimbing.com/post/1404413#1404413
Off the top of my head, there's your four-fingered hand. If you like, I'll provide more examples of unique, useful, and NEW content.
In reply to: IMO you and a few of the other more paranoid users got their wish, aka the removal of the very people who made this site what it was in the first place. And now you are left with the usual day to day s--- we see here day in day out.
But by your own admission, you're not here day in, day out. I'm not trying to be flippant or contrarian. I'm just trying to figure out on what your opinion is based, since none of us ever see you around here much anymore. Your friends are gone? The people you respected are gone? I'm sorry to hear that, but many of those I still enjoy and respect are still here.
Perhaps no more than ever the phrase, "it's what you make of it," is appropriate. You have presented your opinions about the site as if they are fact incarnate, when really, they're only your opinions. They're valid opinions, to be fair... but they're still only opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
anson
Jul 16, 2006, 4:28 AM
Post #35 of 35
(3250 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 658
|
In reply to: You want to see who made this site? ( Here) In reply to: Top Contributors by Points: Who has added the most content? Your guess is as good as mine. But if you could possibly quantify the amount of content people add, the following people could be on your list in the following order.
FWIW, the "ranking" system was either turned off or broken a long time ago. The list quoted is an artifact of an earlier time, and of no use whatsoever in evaluating who has contributed meaningfully to the site to date. It wasn't even a particularly effective measure even when it was actively maintained; that's why it was discontinued.
-aB
|
|
|
|
|
|
