Printable View
ya no problem I'll get that up today :lol8: :lol8: sorry no ride for me today... along with working on the website, i still have to help my dad clean 2 more cars to day... if i'm lucky we'll get done by 10. :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathcricket
Just in time for our "night ride" then.... :lol8:
I love the site, but it only works if it establishes itself as an specialized info site. If users are including concepts such as fun, pleasure, quality of post-trip beer, etc. in the (numeric) rating, then it loses legitimacy. Stick to conditions only for the numeric rating and establish the "overall/general" rating based on (i.e. calculated from) specific, conditions-based ratings. The fun factor and other stuff can be communicated in the text-box comments.
Simply put: the core "hook" of the site should be accurate, vetted ratings based on specific conditions (water temp, anchor quality, etc). All kinds of frills can be added on such as photos and others already mentioned.
Specific suggestion: keep general format as-is, add popup w/breakdown of specific ratings when general rating box is clicked.
Just sent this through comment form on Candition.com.
General comment:
I love the site concept. The details need work. please don't take offense, just feedback from an admiring user.
Some are posting tweet-style TRs ("had a blast with my friends...") and giving a only a general rating. The site would be substantially enriched by the following:
All posters required to submit specific conditions instead of giving a general rating. This could be done through simple click-through checklists: (Water volume / temp / flow, suits recommended or not, anchors in good shape or not, N/A, etc.) Ideally, a number rating for each category with a formula to calculate the general rating. Keep it short and simple. The text box should be reserved for special notes (dead deer in pothole, "had a blast," etc).
Ratings should be subject to review/critique/comment by other users. This will help increase the accuracy of posts over the long haul (ideally, anyway).
That's it for now, thanks for listening.
Hank Moon
Example of a poor rating:
http://www.candition.com/canyons/echo
http://www.candition.com/images/rating/red_user.png 1 out of 5
Date of Trip: July 23, 2011
http://www.candition.com/images/rating/quote_open.png Still cold and very wet http://www.candition.com/images/rating/quote_closed.png
---
My comment: Cold and wet sounds great to me - that's why I go to Echo (that, and for the fantastic Echo chamber).
Thanks to theking648 and others for their work on this site - it's a great start with even greater potential.
That's kinda the problem I have understanding this site honestly. I'll use my own as an example.
So based on the "conditions" I gave it a 4/5. But is this as cool a canyon as say.... Pine Creek? Not even close. Really on a rating system like that it's a 3/5. And come to think of it, I rated Pine Creek a 5/5. Simply because it's gorgeous and I had a really good time when I went through. But now that I think about it using only "conditions", someone took a huge dump right after the the first rap, so the whole place smelled like shit rapping into the cathedral, there was trash everywhere and my pack got full and waterlogged packing it out. So really compared only to my other trips through there (and those conditions) I probably should have rated it a 3/5. Because I have had way better times going through Pine Creek. But who really has a bad time going through Pine Creek? it's epic and still one of the best rides in Zion. So a 3/5 in Pine creek is still leagues above a 4/5 through Water Canyon.Quote:
Water Canyon
Last Candition: July 23, 2011
New Candition
Back
4.0
http://www.candition.com/images/defa...png?1306338953 Deathcricket
http://www.candition.com/images/rating/blue_user.png 4 out of 5
Date of Trip: July 23, 2011
http://www.candition.com/images/rating/quote_open.png Canyon is drying up fast and not flowing past 1/4 mile up, otherwise it would have been a 5/5. All raps are good, ton of froggies and polywogs. The swimmer disconnects are shallow enough to stand in. And was also spotless, no trash or anything i expected to find in a public canyon. Video and pics at http://www.bogley.com/forum/showthre...nyon-7-23-2011 http://www.candition.com/images/rating/quote_closed.png
My issue is that nothing happens when I click on the different canyoneering areas. For example, I click "Robbers Roost", and all I get is "error on page". In fact, just hovering over "Robbers Roost", I get a cursor instead of the hand icon.
Am I doing something wrong? I can't seem to even get to the canyons on this site!
DC, thanks for posting your thoughts, which do a great job of highlighting the problems. The rating can't be based on whether one "likes" the conditions or not. This is way too subjective, duh! For me, current conditions in Water Canyon (based on a preferential scale) would be 2/5. That's 'cuz I like it best when it's flowing hard with snowmelt. WAY more fun (to me) than with shallow, stinky pools, though the tadpoles are a bonus. However, from a conditions standpoint, it's in great shape for summer fun. No need for a suit due to low water levels and no flow, the anchors are all in and bomber, etc. Right now, I'd give these specifics (based on 1-5 scale with 0 = none, 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high, 4 = very high):
1. Anchor quality: 4.5
2. Water depth: 1
3. Water temp: 4
4. Water flow: 0
5. Suit recommend: 0
6. Pothole escape difficulty: 0
The ratings will depend on the canyon and the poster's experience in that canyon. For example, Water Canyon has numerous escapes and has decent sun exposure, so getting dangerously cold is not likely w/o specific circumstances (e.g. injury). 1 CFS might be really hairy for a first-timer in Water Canyon, but no big deal for a veteran. That said, it might be useful to know how many total times a poster had visited that canyon in approx the same conditions, or at least a range (1-5, 5-10, or more, for example).
There could even be other, more esoteric specific ratings such as slickness (sandyness/siltiness/wetness) of stemming/climbing surfaces in in Mae West Canyons. Or log jam height, log soup density, etc. Yeah right - maybe better for the comment box. :mrgreen: Pretty complex stuff.
Hmmm. maybe the idea of a single-number, overall rating is a pipe dream?
Thanks Hank for the recommendations. There is much room for improvement and potential. Your examples above definitely could be tweaked to the website. I'll run them by The King, unless he is already watching this thread, and see what he says. I do, however, know that he quite busy with a lot of projects ATM.
I've been meaning to give him a template of a "bad candition" and a "good candition" and hopefully people would follow that example. I too agree that it can be very subjective "miserable, hiked sucked" and list nothing about the conditions. However there some folks such as the Emperor, Bo_Beck, ilipichicuma, Deathcricket, and a few others who have done a good job at it. More details is better than little details.
I like your idea of how many times a member has been through a canyon in those certain conditions.
Canyoncaver, what browser do you use? And I'm not entirely sure, if candition uses java, but it might, and that's probably the problem if it using Java. I would suggest going to java.com and make sure you the latest version of it. That's a good starting point for now until we know more.
Btw, I've mentioned to the King how a mobile version of the site would be great. I'm almost an entirely mobile guy, and this would be highly convenient. He said, that would be later down the road though...
Jman, thanks for the info and for listening. And you are right that some users post great canditions. With the current model, the quality of the rating is very dependent on the details given in the comment box. Requiring specifics has the potential of reducing this dependence. There, I indulged my penchant for repetition.
I just posted a candition for Water Canyon (for the heck of it, and to give some specifics). I would love the ability to (one-click) "ditto" or "like" Deathcricket's candition on Water Canyon. This could be another way to bolster the validity of a rating and/or its poster. Ah, the potential for more politics... :haha:
I like that. Although, I personally don't think that each condition should be a 4page essay, that's what the TR is for (hence a link back to bogley, personal website, etc). However, if we could tidy the candition you wrote - I think it would be great!Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
And perhaps you could explain how liking someone's candition would bolster the validity of the rating? Does that mean that if you like his, then does that mean you approve of his specifics and details that he wrote? Or is that you agree with the conditions because you went down as well and confirmed that what he wrote is true. Sorry, I'm trying to follow along.
This one. "Like" isn't right - "Ditto" works better. As in "ditto what he said, but on my trip, on this date" This would be a shortcut way to post a candition and bolster the OP's accuracy rating as well. That's the idea, anyhow.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
Was my WC post way too long, then? It's less than a screen, yo, not 4 pages :lol8:
hey @canyoncaver, this was an issue on my side with IE. so sorry about that. this issue was fixed on July 30th. if you still have problems then you can PM me or Email me at hello@candition.com.Quote:
Originally Posted by canyoncaver
I feel bad but, not only have I not been following this thread but I haven't been following bogley. :lol8: Since starting my new job there hasn't been much time, even for my own websites :lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by jman
however I did see your email hank and I totally agree with your ideas, it will just take me some time to implement them. also a mobile app probably won't be that far off it's been on my list for a long time now, but after I take care of the apps I have to build for work I'll start work on the Candition app.
I love reading everybody's ideas, I've had a good amount come in through my email too. I just need to free up some time to work on them.
Also if you haven't noticed, I did move candition to a new server. The load times shouldn't be any longer than 3 seconds... The average lately has been 1 second.
thanks for your help,
Dave
Ahem.
In response to some of the suggestions:
I believe this site is Canditions - as in Canyon Conditions - no CanRatings - as in Canyon Ratings.
Sure there's a bit of ratings thrown in there, but the focus here is on What are the conditions in the canyon NOW.
Tom :moses:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghawk
X2
It's a good idea, and one that I have wanted to implement here on Bogley before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
YES!!!
Definitely. There has been some good updates recently! It's gaining some momentum.
Dave, if you need any more help, feel free to ask me. And yes, the server is much improved!
I'll send you a template for a "good candition" in the next day or so.
Thanks for all the work Dave. It keeps getting better and better.
Dave - would you send me an email at CanyoneeringUSA at gmail dot com - I have a request for you...
Thanks.
Tom
The only canyons I can read about are the "recently added" ones....I can't click on any other canyons. I tried on my iPad and my MacBook. Is this because there are no reports for other canyons yet?
Hi Krrristi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Krrristi
I'm sorry that you're having problems. I had a friend of mine check out the site on his mac and ipad and it seems to be working correctly..
the homepage dropdowns are javascript and as far as I know I've worked out all the problems with the javascript.
so the only suggestion I can make is to make sure that you have javascript enabled on your web browser and Ipad
if you still have problems then you can contact me at hello@candition.com
Cheers,
Dave.
on a side note I would say it's apple's fault :lol8::lol8::lol8::lol8: