|
erick
Nov 25, 2013, 3:43 PM
Post #1 of 17
(7822 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2005
Posts: 191
|
I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Nov 25, 2013, 8:18 PM
Post #2 of 17
(7774 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
erick wrote: I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known.
Just looking at the larger photo, I reloaded the page 15 times - only 4 were arguably non-climbing:
* a snake (probably taken at a climbing area)
* dogs swimming in a river (but it was in the mountains)
* that annoying selfie of the plastic woman with too much makeup
* the cardboard baby lying on a rope
Maybe 'cause people are submitting and/or 5-staring non-climbing photos?
(This post was edited by marc801 on Nov 25, 2013, 8:24 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
6pacfershur
Nov 26, 2013, 4:47 AM
Post #3 of 17
(7729 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2010
Posts: 254
|
ask jeff....
|
|
|
|
|
Fred20
Nov 26, 2013, 3:48 PM
Post #4 of 17
(7684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2012
Posts: 50
|
* that annoying selfie of the plastic woman with too much makeup
lmfao!!! i think this is the 3rd time that photo has been mentioned in a post!
|
|
|
|
|
erick
Nov 26, 2013, 11:24 PM
Post #5 of 17
(7633 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2005
Posts: 191
|
Fred20 wrote: * that annoying selfie of the plastic woman with too much makeup lmfao!!! i think this is the 3rd time that photo has been mentioned in a post!
That's exactly the photo that made me snap. annoying plastic selfie. #sohotrightnow Seriously-- front page of rc.com for a YEAR????????????????????????????? wtf.
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Nov 27, 2013, 12:20 AM
Post #6 of 17
(7625 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
erick wrote: I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known.
Here are the pics currently in the front page rotation:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos/Ratings/
Note that by clicking on the pic and then on the underlined link that says "Rating" next to the stars you can see who voted for each. Many of these got favorably rating bombed to put them on the front page as either a joke or as a big FU to RC. once any photo gets a minimum of three favorable votes, it gets front page status, and even subsequent low ratings won't remove it. Hopefully this is something the new owner will fix.
Also note that 30% of the pics are photo spam by portreroed to enhance his business and blog in Portrero Chico. Within minutes of him getting the pics approved, they get three "five star" votes from Ed, someone posting as his wife, and a friend. Interestingly, the latter two never post anything and are likely troll accounts Ed has set up to hawk his own pic and secure a spot on the front page. Pathetic.
The best way to change this front page rotation is to find new photos that you like and VOTE for them. The more favorable pics in the rotation, the less you will see these current ones repeated.
|
|
|
|
|
erick
Nov 27, 2013, 2:03 AM
Post #7 of 17
(7598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2005
Posts: 191
|
I'm not opposed to potrero pics, it's a great area especially in winter. but i get what you are saying. It is drawing from the database of the users, so if no one's putting up good pictures, there won't be good pictures on the front page. But SERIOUSLY if i see that plastic selfie one more time... That shit just be overridden asap. It looks bad for the site. I didn't sign on to rc.com to see Barbie (then why did i come here again?)
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Dec 24, 2013, 4:40 AM
Post #8 of 17
(7137 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
Shroom wrote: erick wrote: I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known. Here are the pics currently in the front page rotation: http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos/Ratings/ Note that by clicking on the pic and then on the underlined link that says "Rating" next to the stars you can see who voted for each. Many of these got favorably rating bombed to put them on the front page as either a joke or as a big FU to RC. once any photo gets a minimum of three favorable votes, it gets front page status, and even subsequent low ratings won't remove it. Hopefully this is something the new owner will fix. Also note that 30% of the pics are photo spam by portreroed to enhance his business and blog in Portrero Chico. Within minutes of him getting the pics approved, they get three "five star" votes from Ed, someone posting as his wife, and a friend. Interestingly, the latter two never post anything and are likely troll accounts Ed has set up to hawk his own pic and secure a spot on the front page. Pathetic. The best way to change this front page rotation is to find new photos that you like and VOTE for them. The more favorable pics in the rotation, the less you will see these current ones repeated.
How long is this going to be allowed?
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...review.cgi?ID=122837
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 24, 2013, 5:10 PM
Post #9 of 17
(7085 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Shroom wrote: Shroom wrote: erick wrote: I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known. Here are the pics currently in the front page rotation: http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos/Ratings/ Note that by clicking on the pic and then on the underlined link that says "Rating" next to the stars you can see who voted for each. Many of these got favorably rating bombed to put them on the front page as either a joke or as a big FU to RC. once any photo gets a minimum of three favorable votes, it gets front page status, and even subsequent low ratings won't remove it. Hopefully this is something the new owner will fix. Also note that 30% of the pics are photo spam by portreroed to enhance his business and blog in Portrero Chico. Within minutes of him getting the pics approved, they get three "five star" votes from Ed, someone posting as his wife, and a friend. Interestingly, the latter two never post anything and are likely troll accounts Ed has set up to hawk his own pic and secure a spot on the front page. Pathetic. The best way to change this front page rotation is to find new photos that you like and VOTE for them. The more favorable pics in the rotation, the less you will see these current ones repeated. How long is this going to be allowed? http://www.rockclimbing.com/...review.cgi?ID=122837
If you don't think the pic is five-star worthy, give it a four, or three, or whatever you think it's worth. If enough people do this, we will have the pics on the FP that most people like best.
IIRC, it used to be required that more votes were needed to get a pic on the FP rotation. I'm not sure of the exact number, but I think it used to be something like ten votes needed in order to reach consideration for FP status.
The trouble was that few good pics were being loaded to the site, and few people were rating them. So very few pics were reaching the bar, and only like three new pics were in rotation. To fix this, the bar was lowered. I think this did help solve the problem, but with the precipitous dropoff in users over the last year, a new problem has surfaced; there are now so few users that any tiny group can get any pics on the FP rotation.
The solution to this is simple - if more people rate pics appropriately, the pics that most people like best will be the ones on the FP. Please note that at this time, you have not offered a rating on this pic. So that's where I'd start, if I were you.
Of course, the real issue is much thornier to solve: the underlying problem is the small userbase on rc.com. As long as there are very few people coming to rc.com, a small group can always sway things.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Dec 24, 2013, 5:27 PM
Post #10 of 17
(7080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
erick wrote: But SERIOUSLY if i see that plastic selfie one more time... That shit just be overridden asap. It looks bad for the site. I didn't sign on to rc.com to see Barbie (then why did i come here again?)
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Dec 24, 2013, 9:15 PM
Post #11 of 17
(7067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Looks like that pathetic selfie of plastic, heavily made-up, and surgically altered Barbie has been uploaded with a new name, temporarily defeating any AdBlock (or similar) filters.
|
|
|
|
|
Shroom
Jan 8, 2014, 3:34 AM
Post #12 of 17
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2009
Posts: 61
|
Shroom wrote: Shroom wrote: erick wrote: I pose to you this question: Why the heck are the autogenerated pictures on the homepage unrelated to climbing 85% of the time? It has officially driven me mad. This is rockclimbing.com. I would have never known. Here are the pics currently in the front page rotation: http://www.rockclimbing.com/photos/Ratings/ Note that by clicking on the pic and then on the underlined link that says "Rating" next to the stars you can see who voted for each. Many of these got favorably rating bombed to put them on the front page as either a joke or as a big FU to RC. once any photo gets a minimum of three favorable votes, it gets front page status, and even subsequent low ratings won't remove it. Hopefully this is something the new owner will fix. Also note that 30% of the pics are photo spam by portreroed to enhance his business and blog in Portrero Chico. Within minutes of him getting the pics approved, they get three "five star" votes from Ed, someone posting as his wife, and a friend. Interestingly, the latter two never post anything and are likely troll accounts Ed has set up to hawk his own pic and secure a spot on the front page. Pathetic. The best way to change this front page rotation is to find new photos that you like and VOTE for them. The more favorable pics in the rotation, the less you will see these current ones repeated. How long is this going to be allowed? http://www.rockclimbing.com/...review.cgi?ID=122837
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...review.cgi?ID=122862
The self absorbed attention whore is at it again. Truly pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jan 8, 2014, 3:38 PM
Post #13 of 17
(6686 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Shroom wrote: The self absorbed attention whore is at it again. Truly pathetic.
Oh so what. At least they're passable climbing pics and not selfies of overly made up Barbie dolls.
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 8, 2014, 4:17 PM
Post #14 of 17
(6675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
Been posting real climbing pics of real climbers in little known areas on rc.com for almost a decade, maybe not Ansel Adams, but better than barbie, and not promoting any business, and I can't think of a single one that has ever shown up in the rotation.
It's okay, I was never doing it for recognition, but to share some of the spots I know of that aren't as overrun with climbers as the typical scene, maybe attract some tourists to the backwaters of WV that so badly need their dollars (places that NRAC doesn't send a check every year). But how much of that does it take for climbers to stop posting their pics, or believing that the site even cares about anyone but the "names" and moderator pets? Why bother rating a pic when you know it won't matter, in the end?
Still waiting to see the changes to come, but I've been through one ownership swap, and watched one guy pretty much try to run the site for them, making a LOT of mistakes along the way (the bouldering vs roped climbing distinction in the routes db is a joke, and as far as I can tell added little or nothing to the site in the way of contributions, quality, or traffic). Now we have a new set of owners and a lot of feedback... which took exactly two pages to degenerate into SSDD from the same names and faces that have given us so much of that crap that people stayed away in droves, out of boredom, frustration, or disgust.
But to answer your question: Climbing is the hardest, most expensive, dangerous way to avoid walking around a cliff. It is a weekend distraction for city dwellers whose environmental conscience does not include their dog or their group topropes or trespassing on private land as long as some asshat who cranks 5.12 went there first and you can ride their coat tails. It's half a day of exchanging emails and blogsite addresses while doing work on crags half an hour from your condo, snatching up your free T-shirt and tiny PowRBars and going to buy your Jeep at a discount, all while telling yourself this is "conservation" and that you really do practice LNT... when anyone is looking.
Like RC.com, this may change.
Time will tell... but I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 8, 2014, 5:02 PM
Post #15 of 17
(6668 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Right now pictures show up on front page if someone votes for them highly. But most people who log in or view photos do not think to rate the photo, unless it is stellar, or really bad, or as a prank.
I wish the photo rotation included all newly submitted photos, with the ability of the original photo submitters or photo editors to flag the photos as not-for-front page. I'd rather see a bunch of out-of-focus toprope butt shots that get refreshed after couple days, instead of the same old photos over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
roninthorne
Jan 8, 2014, 5:35 PM
Post #16 of 17
(6648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2002
Posts: 659
|
marc801 wrote: Oh so what. At least they're passable climbing pics and not selfies of overly made up Barbie dolls.
They are ads, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jan 8, 2014, 8:05 PM
Post #17 of 17
(6626 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
roninthorne wrote: marc801 wrote: Oh so what. At least they're passable climbing pics and not selfies of overly made up Barbie dolls. They are ads, nothing less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
