Trip report gating

[Boggy B]

I'm not highly invested in the concept of "good" TRs getting lost in a sea of "useless" ones or the need to prevent the same, since views/likes/comments metrics offer a means to promote or filter quality content (and the inverse), automatically if desired. However, submission of trip reports consisting of one-paragraph summaries or redundant trivial beta dumps, incurring dislikes without explanation or with explanation that triggers someone, appears to be an increasingly aggravating experience for the submitter, mod(s), and other users.

These are mainly from newer users and often are not peak conditions nor road/trailhead updates but rather trite synopses of trip or route details that surprised the author or of lessons learned, and they would probably be better received as forum posts, which are more likely to ignite productive discussion around themes that may be useful to others in the near term.

In any case the unambiguous click-throughs don't appear to be working to prevent such submissions. I don't know what the solution is, but I'm starting to think it's AI. Use that to categorize on submission according to whatever criteria, then either channel it to the appropriate area (which could be the forum) automatically or prompt the submitter? Pricing per volume on API calls for TRs only should be extremely reasonable. Of course someone has to put that together and test it, which isn't free.

Also, I'm not sure a dislike button for TRs is beneficial. Not bashing those who use it (also, guilty), but on reflection the message it sends is generically both negative and unconstructive.

Thoughts?

[12ersRule]

Maybe some kind of 'preferences menu' on what to exclude or include.

I want to see reports from these favorite content providers would be one preference. Another preference by elevation range - checkboxes for the 13ers, 14ers, or other range.
Probably a lot of other things to filter on.

Do your job, Bill, make it happen (my favorite all-time skimo quote).



Otherwise, if you don't log in or you don't specify, you get what you see now.

[yaktoleft13]

I've thought a lot about this too. Natalie and I talked (half joked but maybe not) about a group of like 10 trusted users who look at all new trip reports to check to see if they actually qualify as a trip report. We can all tell what a trip report is in a 10 second glance. All it would take is any 1 of the people to confirm yes, this is a trip report and send it through to the active site. I'd be happy to volunteer for this job too.

[Willy the Kid]

Maybe in addition to the click-throughs and all of that stuff that tells you what a trip report should be (that some people unfortunately do not seem to read/understand), there could be a minimum word count for them? Nothing too high, as some people have good beta but don't have time to write and edit an entertaining and useful 5000 word report, but enough to keep out the reports with only one or two paragraphs. That would prevent many of the very short reports, and if a report didn't meet the requirement, there could be a pop-up referring the writer to the forum and/or explaining where to put the info contained in their few paragraphs into the website (CRs for current conditions, forum posts for questions and discussions, etc). It might be difficult to find the sweet spot between keeping out paragraphs and allowing shorter but still useful reports, but once that initial obstacle is overcome, it should be pretty easy to implement and would at least partially prevent future trip report drama.

[supranihilest]

Links to both good and bad examples would help prospective writers figure out that their paragraph is not actually good. Following that, the first trip report or two could be vetted by an administrator (though I think Bill's the only one) before they become public. Yes, I realize the subjectivity of that. If they repeatedly write poor trip reports then they don't get published. I personally find the warning to be ultra clear but there are obviously people who either don't understand, don't care, or just don't read it.

[Wentzl]

How about this, for cleaning up the file. Pick a number, let's say 10. If a trip report is tagged with "disliked" 10 times it is automatically sent to a sub file of "Trip Report Submissions". I imagine this would be easy enough to set up and then there would be trip reports that everyone found useful in the "Trip Report" tab and everything else could be found in the other "Trip Report Submissions" tab to serve history and/or ego. This idea could be tweeked, perhaps the 10 should not be absolute, but net result offset by "likes". Something along those lines

[angry]

No offense to people who contribute them regularly but unless you are providing new info on an obscure peak or a very compelling story, I don't see the need. >500 TRs on the big Q is wild!

[JROSKA]

Maybe in addition to the click-throughs and all of that stuff that tells you what a trip report should be (that some people unfortunately do not seem to read/understand), there could be a minimum word count for them?

That seems to the best solution (if possible). A minimum word word count, and a minimum number of pictures. Specified clearly. That would at least send a message to a TR writer that they have to put in some work, do some editing, and figure out which pictures they want to share and how to post them.

Right now the rules seem a bit ambiguous. It says “don’t just post a paragraph” and “provide useful information”. But there was a Handies TR last week, while it wasn’t the most high quality, it did provide some useful info both about the peak and the TH, and it was 4 or 5 short paragraphs. Yet the guy got scolded. And someone told him “no summit selfies”. I had no idea that was a rule on this site and I’ve been here 13 years. He was also told “post more pictures”. No specific number though so that’s ambiguous too.

I’m not a computer expert but it seems like 3 rules - a 1-2k word limit, 10 pictures, and those pictures being required to be embedded in the report and not just clustered at the end, would be enough to 1) get rid of the bots and 2) encourage the real humans to do some work.

The bigger issue (from what I’ve observed) seems to be that newbie stuff isn’t really welcomed here in general. Personally I don’t mind sifting through or ignoring a few awkwardly worded TR’s but it sure does seem to annoy a fair number of members here. As evidenced by the number of “dislikes” on any newbie TR. I hope I’m wrong. But “I climbed my first 14er!” just does not seem like something that 90% of this forum community cares about. If that’s the case, maybe there needs to be a disclaimer (or ban) on posting a TR until someone has been in here for a year or two. It just does not seem to me that newbie reports (even when rules are followed) are received well here.

Last thing, I agree with the OP. The “dislike” feature is horrible. I don’t think it has any place in a forum setting like this.

[Dave B]

Add a "Report" button for TRs that don't follow guidelines (rather than dislike button). Reported TRs can be reviewed and, if not of sufficient depth, deleted. An email can then be sent to the user re-outlining expectations and offering an option to resubmit after modifications and review.

With that said, I also agree with the angry flower that many TRs on this site have become superfluous. The ones that get attention typically are insightful and well written, provide new and useful beta, or are written by folks well known in the community - which is maybe 10-20% of all TRs. The rest just go to help train AI.

[RestlessLegSyndrome]

I personally enjoy reading short trip reports (even the ones with no pictures and redundant information). Everyone expresses their excitement of their experiences differently, and I don’t appreciate the dislike button for those that fail to write a novel about their adventures. I think it’s fun to share in someone’s excitement about their climb, regardless of their skill level (in both writing and mountaineering).

[HikesInGeologicTime]

I personally enjoy reading short trip reports (even the ones with no pictures and redundant information). Everyone expresses their excitement of their experiences differently, and I don’t appreciate the dislike button for those that fail to write a novel about their adventures. I think it’s fun to share in someone’s excitement about their climb, regardless of their skill level (in both writing and mountaineering).

+1. 14ers.com is a mountain-centric website, not a writing/photography workshop.

Having a system to flag or report TRs that would be better suited for conditions updates or forum topics sounds reasonable (or those where it seems clear the author saved a very rough draft as “Active” before it was ready to be published), but ripping into writers for not writing a full novella’s worth of words or including summit selfies seems pointless and cruel. Save that Karen energy for Yelp and/or Google reviews.

[bdloftin77]

Add a "Report" button for TRs that don't follow guidelines (rather than dislike button). Reported TRs can be reviewed and, if not of sufficient depth, deleted. An email can then be sent to the user re-outlining expectations and offering an option to resubmit after modifications and review.

With that said, I also agree with the angry flower that many TRs on this site have become superfluous. The ones that get attention typically are insightful and well written, provide new and useful beta, or are written by folks well known in the community - which is maybe 10-20% of all TRs. The rest just go to help train AI.

I agree! I think a report button is a good idea to flag reports for review.