 Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Changing the Page Adoption Process

Suggestions and comments about SummitPost's features, policies, and procedures. Post bugs here.
 

Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:06 pm

First the current process...

Users PM and email the page owner and ask for page ownership if they want to work on a page. Sometimes the owner denies the request, sometimes the ower offers the page up, and often the request is ignored (usually because the owner is inactive). If the request is ignored for a month and the owner appears inactive, the elves give the requester the page.

Givens: The process works (I've done it a few times myself, and have gotten all three of the above results) and the process is not a burden for the elves (this doesn't happen a lot and takes very little time). Also a given... the process needs improvement and should work better. I think the biggest burden here is that members are often reluctant to request a page because they don't want to intrude, especially if the page is weak (rather than horrid).

Matt has a couple of good ideas here. The exact mechanisms haven't been worked out. Any other ideas? Or thoughts on the details?

1) Allow users to apply to get update permissions.
2) Pages come up for adoption if not up to date (as voted on by the community -- this would require adding a way to vote whether or not a page is sufficiently up to date).

EDIT:

Also... feel free to comment or vote on the idea here:
http://summitpost.uservoice.com/forums/ ... or-adoptio
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1239 times in 839 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Bob Sihler » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:28 pm

Not wild about #2 or some other kind of open system. There are a lot of pages that are okay but just don't look as pretty as some would prefer, and I see a bunch of claim jumping taking place, plus manipulation of the process.

I think the current system works well as long as one is willing to step up and make the request. And if the owner has been long inactive, I usually don't bother with the waiting period or the PM/email request.

The main problem with the current system, as I see it, is this: page owners who are active but who refuse to transfer bad pages or make corrections/updates when they are pointed out. This may require more aggressive administrative action, but I'm curious to hear members' thoughts on this issue and suggestions for how to address it.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Driftwood, Texas, United States
Thanked: 2514 times in 1400 posts

The following user would like to thank Bob Sihler for this post
Scott

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Woodie Hopper » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:36 pm

I'm concerned about #2 as well. I do think though that maintainers of pages who ignore requests to update/correct information should respond to reasonable requests for updating and/or correction. Reassignment of pages should not be decided or voted on by non-administrators.

My $0.02.

Woodie
User Avatar
Woodie Hopper

 
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:06 pm
Location: Denver & Leadville, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 27 times in 23 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Kiefer » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:51 pm

Yah. I no likey #2.
If a page is allowed to sit for an indiscriminate length of time while the parties involved wait for the page owener to respond, nothing may ever happen.
If a page sits untouched for 4-9 years...or for how ever long, I think THAT pretty much speaks for itself. Waiting an extra few days won't do anything but prolong.
Like Bob said, take action now.

BTW: I like all this new, recent "ownership" in SP lately. It's drastically improving the site and increasing the 'accountability.'
Image
User Avatar
Kiefer

 
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Estes Park, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 117 times in 66 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby mrchad9 » Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:53 pm

I too have concerns about pages being taken from people based on a voting process. But what if there were a more automated way to request ownership so folks were less reluctant to try?
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1239 times in 839 posts

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
Scott

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Josh Lewis » Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:25 am

Bob Sihler wrote:The main problem with the current system, as I see it, is this: page owners who are active but who refuse to transfer bad pages or make corrections/updates when they are pointed out.


Bob nailed it in this post. I've contacted many individuals within my time here on SP about them improving pages. I get 1 of 2 people typically. The first set are overly nice and give up the page without even asking for it (which isn't a bad thing considering that they ask if I'm willing to maintain it). The second set of people are those who are "active" but do nothing with the page that hasn't been updated in years. I send a request for them to add a detail... "naw man, it's fine the way it is". :x The active members who post stuff frequently listen to me. :) Unfortunately they don't own the pages that need it the most from my experience.
User Avatar
Josh Lewis

 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Lynnwood, Washington, United States
Thanked: 966 times in 590 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Scott » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:12 am

I too have concerns about pages being taken from people based on a voting process. But what if there were a more automated way to request ownership so folks were less reluctant to try?


Sounds like a good idea, but as mentioned, one must be cautious with #2. If the maintainer hasn't logged in for two or more years, it's pretty much a given, but if the maintainer is active, it's a tougher issue.

Would it be possible for #2 to kick in after a maintainer hasn't logged into SP in say, at least two years (for example)? Or would the programming required to do this be too complex?

A seperate way to vote on whether a page is up to date or not is a good idea in many ways. Sometimes a page may have an excellent score, and was excellently written, but an important update happens that needs to be added. The score alone wouldn't flag whether or not the page is up to date or not.

I recently adopted the Tabeguache Peak page in Colorado. The page was actually written quite well before recent adoption. It had a high score as well. Unfortunately, the maintainer (whom I used to go on some climbs with and was an excellent contributer) left SP and hasn't logged in for several years. Although the page was excellent when he wrote it, access routes and trailheads completely changed. The standard route on the mountain changed as well (the old page was inaccurate on which trailheads were open and closed). Although the page looked good, it needed to be rewritten and updated.

A way to vote that a page is out of date could be a very good thing.
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 1041 times in 536 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Josh Lewis » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:20 am

Scott wrote:Would it be possible for #2 to kick in after a maintainer hasn't logged into SP in say, at least two years (for example)


I don't see why this would be necessary. If a page owner has not logged in for two years, typically the page is up for grabs considering that they seemed to have moved on. The advantage to requesting is that it is slightly more effort (which I consider a good thing) because it shows that perhaps the individual getting the page cares for it enough to specifically ask the elves. I don't see much advantage to inactive member pages to be automated to be given up. I suppose that makes the elves completely free of being ranted at. :wink:
User Avatar
Josh Lewis

 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Lynnwood, Washington, United States
Thanked: 966 times in 590 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Scott » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:42 am

I don't see much advantage to inactive member pages to be automated to be given up. I suppose that makes the elves completely free of being ranted at.


I didn't necessarily mean automatically given up, but flagged for adoption if it were both the page owner hadn't logged in and if voted out of date (by a certain amount of members). Just a thought though. The current process works pretty well as long as people are willing to ask. Perhaps having some kind of tag on the page about adoption on an outdated page may encourage some to do this? Just a thought.

The advantage to requesting is that it is slightly more effort (which I consider a good thing) because it shows that perhaps the individual getting the page cares for it enough to specifically ask the elves.


Fair point. It wouldn't be good for someone to adopt a bunch of pages unless they are going to improve them. Some people would do that under SPv1 (adopt a bunch of pages and never improve them; it was automated back then).
User Avatar
Scott

 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 1:03 pm
Location: Craig, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 1041 times in 536 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Josh Lewis » Tue Feb 12, 2013 5:51 am

Scott wrote:Perhaps having some kind of tag on the page about adoption on an outdated page may encourage some to do this?


I think this is a very valid idea. I personally am in favor for something like this.
User Avatar
Josh Lewis

 
Posts: 3227
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:12 pm
Location: Lynnwood, Washington, United States
Thanked: 966 times in 590 posts

The following user would like to thank Josh Lewis for this post
Kiefer

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Kiefer » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:09 pm

Yah. I like Scott's idea as well. I've recieved pretty much the same responses as Josh on pages I'm keen on taking over. Two years is a long time. Some pages and user log-in's have even greater time elapse.
If someone who owns a page isn't willing to updte it or refresh it, then obviously, to me anyway, they have no interest in the site as a contributor.
User Avatar
Kiefer

 
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:30 pm
Location: Estes Park, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 117 times in 66 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby mrchad9 » Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:48 pm

So I am hearing two things...

1. Allow members to flag a page somehow as being outdated, but it has no effect other than as a sort of notification.
2. Develop a more automated way for members to request adoption, but do not automate the actual handover. To actually adopt the page, the owner must still do the handover or an elf can assist if the owner is unresponsive.

Yes/no?
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4311
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1239 times in 839 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Bob Sihler » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:37 am

Yes.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Driftwood, Texas, United States
Thanked: 2514 times in 1400 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Bob Sihler » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:43 am

Kiefer Thomas wrote:Yah. I like Scott's idea as well. I've recieved pretty much the same responses as Josh on pages I'm keen on taking over. Two years is a long time. Some pages and user log-in's have even greater time elapse.
If someone who owns a page isn't willing to updte it or refresh it, then obviously, to me anyway, they have no interest in the site as a contributor.


If the owner has been inactive for a year, I typically hand the page over without requesting the prospective owner to send email or PM. Typically-- I have made some exceptions.

If it's been under a year, I usually do request the PM/email approach, especially if the owner has logged in in recent months even if the page hasn't been updated in years.

I've had very little trouble with this system. As far as I can remember, I've had to deal with only one case of an inactive member returning to find his pages adopted and being upset about it. But even in that case, I didn't transfer the pages back. I left it up to the new owner to decide, and he ended up transferring a couple back, but not all.

Really, I don't think the current adoption process is that much of an issue.
"Alcohol is like love. The first kiss is magic, the second is intimate, the third is routine. After that you take the girl's clothes off."

--Terry Lennox, The Long Goodbye (Raymond Chandler)
User Avatar
Bob Sihler
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:20 pm
Location: Driftwood, Texas, United States
Thanked: 2514 times in 1400 posts

Re: Changing the Page Adoption Process

Postby Fletch » Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:47 am

Could there be a list of pages that are up for adoption that people could go in and vote on? Then, when a page gets below a certain points score (say 50% or 40%), it becomes officially "up for grabs"? There would need to be somebody to "sign off" on the transfer (say, an Elf) just to make sure that people aren't ganging up on a page so somebody can take it, but I think that could work --- it essentially lets people take a page based on the quality, not on how long someone has or has not logged in...

The way I see it, if a page is getting enough bad votes, then let the system do its job...

But I predict that by 2050, every page will be owned by Josh Lewis... [shudder]

Kidding!
User Avatar
Fletch

 
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 5:46 pm
Location: Orange County
Thanked: 116 times in 67 posts

Next

Return to Site Feedback

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/post908047.html
www.summitpost.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2017-13
73501
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MZBIFL3YOGYAOJHAT6ROA3ZU7PDUTID6
<urn:uuid:4afb7ee3-6e3c-4382-b7aa-03b6b7624299>
2017-03-29T14:17:56Z
104.130.126.110
sha1:R7UITSC2QPQNPLZAE3COJD7VC4UZTJFF
<urn:uuid:8f51e6c8-5dbc-48b0-bf42-f9f44b2efc8f>
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/post908047.html
length
response
<urn:uuid:945fbd9d-4e37-4331-b23c-44c4a7546f54>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-233-31-227.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2017-13
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2017
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf