Route Guide - iPhone / Android - Partners - Forum - Photos - Deals - What's New - School of Rock
Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
format of route pages
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 1 of 1.  
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By caughtinside
From Oakland CA
Feb 7, 2011

Hello all,

This may be a small and petty quibble, but I see that in the new page layout for a route, the very first thing at the top of the page is the person who submitted the route to MP. Right above the FA.

I really preferred the old way, where the person who uploaded the route is at the bottom of the route header. The person who uploads it is pretty unimportant, while all the rest of the data is relevant to the route and it's history.

thanks.

Edited to add: by the way, I think the site and the admins do a fantastic job here, I hope this suggestion is received in the spirit of constructive criticism.


FLAG
By j gatchalian
From denver, co
Feb 7, 2011
little twin owls area, lumpy ridge.  with arms wide open...

i would have to agree with you on this one. i would rather know the real info about the route first. other than the "ranking system" of points, the submitter of said information bears no weight in my mind. but maybe enough people really do care more about who's submitting and posting these routes, rather than the climb itself. to each his own, i guess.


FLAG
By Tim McCabe
Feb 7, 2011

Back in the day when climbing in Jtree, we used to always check the FA for routes when consulting the guide book. If you knew something about the FA's style of climbing you could get a feel for what to expect.

Might be that if you get a feel for different people submitting here you might have some insight as to what to expect from said submission.

Just my .02 likely only worth half of that.


FLAG
By Monty
From Golden, CO
Feb 7, 2011
Just a teaser

I'm glad this bothered someone else too! I was going to start a similar thread, but figured I was the only one. I agree that the FA and Grade shoud be up top


FLAG
By Nick Wilder
Site Landlord
From The Bubble
Feb 7, 2011
Personal Photo

Good points. It's now rearranged.


FLAG
By Adam Stackhouse
Administrator
Feb 7, 2011
Courtright Reservoir, September 2013

While we are at it, I think the routes' ratings should come before the class and length.


FLAG
By tenesmus
Feb 9, 2011

Check out the formatting of the route pages

One of the coolest things about Mtn Project is pulling up a route page and scanning that first photo. I love seeing the action or beta shot right up there at the top. Now, I get to see a nice... fat... advertisement.

Not that I mind advertising on here. Its part of the deal. But does it need to take over everything?


FLAG
By tenesmus
Feb 9, 2011

oh yeah, when I looked at it again, I also notice the size of the route photo seems reduced. Either that or the advertisement is enlarged. Is that the priority we want on here?


FLAG
 
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Feb 9, 2011
Bucky

tenesmus wrote:
oh yeah, when I looked at it again, I also notice the size of the route photo seems reduced. Either that or the advertisement is enlarged. Is that the priority we want on here?


I would have to agree on this. The advertisements are indeed a bit over the top. Unless MP absolutely needs to have the sponsors displayed at the top to fund the website, then do we really need to be beat over the head with hot deals from the models of Moosejaw? Between those big a@# advertisements on the routes pages and the "dirt bag" stuff flashing around on the front page, the trend on MP unfortunately seems to be leaning towards the obnoxious.

EDIT: To be clear, the dirt bag deals are located in a fairly innocuous location. I guess it really is the advertisements on the top of the route pages that is particularly unsightly. If the route ads were more subtle like the dirt bag deals, then I wouldn't have a complaint.


FLAG
By Nick Wilder
Site Landlord
From The Bubble
Feb 9, 2011
Personal Photo

The maximum height of the photo has been reduced. This only affects very tall photos. These tall photos were sometimes messing up other formatting, and this change isn't related to the ads.

To follow up on the other topics: yes, advertisers do require the ad to be "above the fold" (visible without scrolling). So in our page layouts, the ad does need to be in that spot. FYI, I'm sensitive to moving content further down the page, and measured it as I made the changes. The photo only moved down 80-120 pixels, depending on route details (~3/4 of an inch on most monitors), so it's not much farther for you to look.

As for MP "leaning towards the obnoxious"... well, we've had at least one ad on every page since day 1, over 5 years ago. Yes, even climbingboulder.com had ads for years before then. We now have one average-sized ad (it's called an IMU-sized unit and is the most common on the internet) that is only serving very relevant ads from stores that many of us actually support anyways. And we have Dirtbag Deals, which is an ad, but also a decent service for climbers. That's pretty minimal for a free service.


FLAG
By J. Albers
From Colorado
Feb 9, 2011
Bucky

Thanks for the response Nick.

I kinda figured that the prominence of the ads at the top of the route page had to do with needing to fund the site. If this is the case then fine, so be it.

However, to say that the ads have been inserted in such a prominent location since the climbingboulder.com days is a bit of a stretch. The ads back then (and until recently here on MP as well) were off to the side; the ads were still available to see without scrolling, they just weren't front and center at the top of the page. Perhaps my use of the word 'obnoxious' was a bit over the top, but nevertheless, I do think that having an ad in the center of the screen, at the top of the page, and above a picture of the route is unfortunate. The ads are definitely the first thing your attention is drawn to when you get to a route page and that is a bummer. I think it was better before when the ads were off to the side of the page. Just my two cents.


FLAG
By tenesmus
Feb 9, 2011

Ahhh. I think I see what's happening. When I'm at home I use Firefox and probably have it set to block those ads. I see the same screehshot you posted.

Maybe I need to update the settings on the version I use at work.

oh, and 'obnoxious' is absolutely the correct word.


FLAG
By caughtinside
From Oakland CA
Feb 10, 2011

Agreed that the current format of the routes pages puts a big obnoxious ad right where the photo used to be. I really liked the old route page format, it was clean and had cohesion. Now it's a chopped up mess to accommodate an ad.


FLAG
By Mike
From Phoenix
Feb 10, 2011
Doing the jump-across off The Mace.  I never get tired of this climb.  Photo by Wednesday Hugus.

Wow. Yeah the new format kind of sucks. Sorry but that is my honest opinion.


FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 1 of 1.