Tonnere Tower Route Descriptions Removed

Go to mountainproject.com/v/color… and see what you think. Is this a good idea?

Peter,

I have no idea what's going on here. I'll find out.

Cheers
john

Thanks John. If Ron Olsen decided to remove descriptions en masse, maybe he could provide an explanation?

A single individual acted alone and sabotaged all the content. A very sad turn of events.

Ultimately the only choice may be to remove the entire area and let the community resubmit it.

Lame.

At this risk of this user sabotaging more content, I've deactivated his account. Unfortunately this will also prevent him from explaining why he did this. But there really isn't any choice as otherwise he could choose to sabotage vast amounts of content.

Routes were removed, thus screwing up my ticklist. I use my ticklist to help me choose what routes to do and what to suggest to other people, as well as keep track of what I've climbed in the past. Letting routes be removed for pretty much any reason is a bad idea IMO. It messes up other parts of the site (ticklist/todos). I have no problem "donating" the routes and areas I've submitted to the public domain. I think that submitted routes and areas should NOT be the property of the contributor, and they should NOT be able to remove them once submitted.

He didn't remove the routes, he changed the descriptions. It would be a bad idea, imo, to prevent users from editing their descriptions later. Unfortunately, this user abused the goodwill.

OOOOOOOO,

looks like Bobby D. and Ronnie O are gettin back at mountain proj. in the interest of guidebook sales?

drama queen city

One word: Dingleberry

Evan Simons wrote:One word: Dingleberry

well said

Andy Laakmann wrote:He didn't remove the routes, he changed the descriptions. It would be a bad idea, imo, to prevent users from editing their descriptions later. Unfortunately, this user abused the goodwill.

Hey Andy, having no idea how complicated the programming might be, I'm just tossing this out...

Fair point that route submitters should be able to edit, but what about some kind of filter or approval feature? You sure wouldn't want to police threads or forum edits. But more "structural" content that people rely on, such as areas and routes, could become semi-protected after submission. The contributor could submit edits, but they would have to be approved by an admin or a super admin before taking effect.
Could that reasonably work? It seems like it would be a relatively limited quantity of material for review.

I have emailed with Bob about this as he was upset that anyone may have construed the route removal as related to the guidebook. Apparently neither he nor Ron had that motive and I can accept that fully. Before passing judgment, I think we should wait to see if Ron will state his motives. Someone who has contributed so much in terms of routes and MP descriptions should be given the benefit of the doubt and I want to correct the impression I may have conveyed that mercenary motives were behind all this.

Peter Beal wrote:I have emailed with Bob about this as he was upset that anyone may have construed the route removal as related to the guidebook. Apparently neither he nor Ron had that motive and I can accept that fully. Before passing judgment, I think we should wait to see if Ron will state his motives. Someone who has contributed so much in terms of routes and MP descriptions should be given the benefit of the doubt and I want to correct the impression I may have conveyed that mercenary motives were behind all this.

what other motive could there be?

there's the route listing, no description and then a direct link to buy the guidebook.Good god I admire your interest in civility but come on...
2+2=4?

I have maintained some web based content (not climbing related) elsewhere and having an audit trail available is a key feature needed in any system like this. Much like wiki's for those familiar with them. There should be some archive/audit trail of the data available, or at least backups, and I would hope that the site admins could restore from that?

I would be very surprised if no record existed at all!

I haven't even climbed there but I bet you wouldn't even need a guidebook. Chances are the route will be 9+ w/ a bolt every 4 feet. Simple. Let the other mpers restablish the "descriptions" .

I have to talk more with Bob about this but apparently Ron did not want to put up with the ongoing criticism he received about the Tonnere routes. Again, I would prefer to wait for Ron's words on the topic.

Regarding the guidebook, after thinking about it, I considered the likelihood that this move might in fact create bad feelings toward the book and its authors and would not encourage its purchase. So I accept fully that sales of the book had nothing to do with it.

tom selleck wrote: what other motive could there be? there's the route listing, no description and then a direct link to buy the guidebook.Good god I admire your interest in civility but come on... 2+2=4?

And what's your motive?

Richard Radcliffe wrote: And what's your motive?

argument, that's all these forums are good for.

flame away

tom selleck wrote: argument, that's all these forums are good for. flame away

How can I flame? Your arguments are so compelling.

Well if I were in Tom's place, my motive would be a) to express resentment at an act of apparent virtual vandalism, and b) to express skepticism at explanations of motives other than the one sliced by Occam's razor.

Shawn - a feature like you describe already exists and fortunately many of the changes have been undone. If something was missed, let us know.

Thanks everyone for alerting us to this issue and offering discussion points.
Andy

My bad, at first glance it seemed like routes had been removed. I'm for a wiki-style system with recorded revisions for the content of the routes, areas, etc. I think it could be made to work.