Candition - Canyon labeling. Need your assistance please!

Hey guys (and ladies), I will be spending a bunch of time tomorrow with member SilverCG and working on adding/correcting more canyons to Candition.com

This is more of a public service announcement and wanted to get some feedback (if you have the time).

Our intent is to focus on canyon and area names. Anything from corrections to migrations (IE Undercover Canyon aka "Lost and Found Canyon") to additions to deletions.

Take a look now at the website and you can see some of the added areas and canyons I added last night, for ideas.

It doesn't look pretty now, I know...it's a work in progress.

And the future idea (tomorrow) is to have a parent folder for each state, where you click on it and then expands that to the appropriate sub-regions for that state. This will keep it cleaner and easier on the eyes.

Also, after 15 years of canyoneering, and maybe this is just me speaking, but I'm getting tired of associating "Water Canyon" near Hilldale in Utah, with Zion National Park. It's not just a 5mile drive from Zion either. It's much further away.

Anyway... I'm hoping to get a few ideas on how to organize the canyons into their proper respective region.

For another example, people associate "Yankee Doodle" canyon with Zion. Again, it's not. So, on Candition, it is in its own category named "Utah - St. George Area" instead. Now, I could make it technically correct and change it to "Utah - Leeds Area" instead, but then we might run into the issue of getting too specific. And too specific means more "areas" and more areas mean more confusion and eye fatigue.

Would you rather have specific areas labeled as "Utah - Poison Springs Area" and "Utah - Dirty Devil Area" instead of all of them under one label "Utah - North Wash" ?

If you have any recommendations on the canyon labeling, now is the time.

Thanks!

-Brett

The Super Amazing Map has the most complete listing of canyon names for the state of Utah. Also, I try my best to label each canyon with it's most commonly used name. Occasionally a name changes (like Poe for Smiling Cricket), then I'll update it, but that is quite rare.

Regarding the breaking down of regions, I'd err towards fewer options than more. It is best to keep the website simple, so that people are motivated to use it. Yes, Water, Yankee etc aren't in Zion or St. George, but the savvy and intelligent Candition user will look for them there. Pick one of those places, there is no wrong answer (except to create more headers). THINK CLEAN AND ELEGANT. That will draw users in.

I just looked at Candition, this is what I'd change-

1. Take the three Grand Canyon headers, combine them into one labeled 'Grand Canyon'. Take the Ariziona off the front.
2. Create one header that says 'Nevada'.
3. Create one header that says 'Colorado - Other'.
4. Create one header that says 'Ouray'
5. Get rid of Alaska. Nobody will ever, ever, ever use that. Adding things like that only adds needles clutter, which demotivates users.
6. Combine all of non-Grand Canyon Arizona under one header.
7. Take Utah off all of the Utah headers. It is redundant.
8. Moab should be one header.
9. Delete the text - /G.S area. The word Escalante alone is fine.

In the future, if Nevada and Arizona peeps get on board with Candition, THEN break those headers into smaller regions. But dammit, they've gotta earn it! :mrgreen:

Also, as traffic increases, it will be useful to have perhaps 10 canditions (instead of 5) at the top of the page. Something to think of later, perhaps.

And @jman , let me be the first to say THANK YOU for updating the site. :2thumbs: I hope every canyoneer in Utah gets in the habit of using it.

More-

Lake Powell should be one heading. Include Ticaboo and Halls Creek, to keep it simple.

I agree with most of what Slot Machine says, except for the part about Grand Staircase-Escalante. The Grand Staircase actually covers a much larger area than Escalante.

Thanks for responding Bob! I really do appreciate your time in responding.

Thanks for all of the details. And those details are what makes or breaks the website in terms of user-ability and retention.

And thanks for the effort with SAM btw! And we have talked about incorporating your map into the website somehow. Or reference it or something.

In regards to Lake Powell canyons... I've heard many people refer to North Wash as Lake Powell, and North Wash as just that, North Wash. What should it be?

I've even seen a few websites put the Black Hole under Lake Powell instead of Cedar Mesa. What should that be?

The whole point of this is standardization. (Well, at least, try my best to make it clean while being attractive (or elegant) to use. Repetitive use!

Oh, and the thing about the Grand Canyon canyons is that there are 120+ of them. And having them all load under one name would take a while to scroll through. That's why I broke it into the three regions (and mirrored most of it from the "Grand Canyoneeing" book too). I see some pros and cons of both.

It doesn't matter to me, personally. I just want Candition to reflect Climb-Utah, Bluugnome, RyanRoadtrips, Canyon Collective Betabase, Kelsey, CanyoneeringUSA, Ropewiki, etc. and the other good Beta sources.

And it's difficult to mirror that when different authors associate canyons with different areas and names. What to do!? *pulls hair-out*


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For regions the fewer the better. The reason Yankee Doddle and Water get listed in Zion is the average canyoneer does them when visiting Zions. Also that has kind of become the standard for Utah.

If I was to redo Climb-Utah.com today it would be divided into 4 regions. Southwest, Southeast, Northwest and Northeast.

YMMV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

Thanks for responding Bob! I really do appreciate your time in responding.
Thanks for all of the details. And those details are what makes or breaks the website in terms of user-ability and retention.
And thanks for the effort with SAM btw! And we have talked about incorporating your map into the website somehow. Or reference it or something.

---

No problemo! :mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

In regards to Lake Powell canyons... I've heard many people refer to North Wash as Lake Powell, and North Wash as just that, North Wash. What should it be?

---

When I think of canyoneering regions, I close my eyes and see Tom's well laid out and logical map -

Attachment 84815
Image courtesy of Tom Jones / canyoneeringusa.com

I think many folks think of canyoneering regions this way. Also, the Candition North Wash list is now so long, and used so much, that it deserves its own header.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

I've even seen a few websites put the Black Hole under Lake Powell instead of Cedar Mesa. What should that be?

---

Cedar Mesa, like on Tom's map.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

Oh, and the thing about the Grand Canyon canyons is that there are 120+ of them. And having them all load under one name would take a while to scroll through. That's why I broke it into the three regions (and mirrored most of it from the "Grand Canyoneeing" book too). I see some pros and cons of both.

---

With multiple GC headers we all suffer. With only one GC header only a couple of people suffer. Let the smaller group suffer, says I. Think of reasons for less headers, resist the urge to nerd out and make more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

And it's difficult to mirror that when different authors associate canyons with different areas and names. What to do!? *pulls hair-out*

---

Use my map. The desktop version has them all nicely sorted. I've already pulled my hair out, so you don't have to! :lol8:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scott P

I agree with most of what Slot Machine says, except for the part about Grand Staircase-Escalante. The Grand Staircase actually covers a much larger area than Escalante.

---

Good point, Scott. I'd list it as Escalante / Grand Staircase. The abbreviation 'G.S.' leaves the reader to decipher what the abbreviation stands for. People that aren't from Utah will have no clue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

If I was to redo Climb-Utah.com today it would be divided into 4 regions. Southwest, Southeast, Northwest and Northeast.

---

Thank goodness your aren't redoing Climb-Utah today! Too simple, for folks like me that don't have the memory capacity to remember what is under those nondescript headers. :mrgreen:

Personally, what I would like to see the most is when I go and read someone's candition report, there's nothing in the report that identifies the canyon area, so if I've not heard of that canyon, I have to go back and research your database to try and find it, sometimes not having a clue as to where to begin looking or I go to Slot's map & try to find it there.
Also, you're probably familiar with this site, but in case you're not, I've referred to this to try and reconcile different canyon names - especially with Kelsey.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~sfolias/ca...es/canyonames/
Overall, I would like to see a little more refinement in identifying key regions. North Wash should be separate from Lake Powell and maybe Dirty Devil as an example, but agree with Slot that it could easily become overkill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peakbaggers

Personally, what I would like to see the most is when I go and read someone's candition report, there's nothing in the report that identifies the canyon area, so if I've not heard of that canyon, I have to go back and research your database to try and find it, sometimes not having a clue as to where to begin looking or I go to Slot's map & try to find it there.
Also, you're probably familiar with this site, but in case you're not, I've referred to this to try and reconcile different canyon names - especially with Kelsey.
http://www.math.utah.edu/~sfolias/ca...es/canyonames/
Overall, I would like to see a little more refinement in identifying key regions. North Wash should be separate from Lake Powell and maybe Dirty Devil as an example, but agree with Slot that it could easily become overkill.

---

Thanks peakbaggers.

I'm glad you said something about the region for the canyon name. I forgot about adding that to the list. That's something that def needs to be addressed.


Also, I think I am going to revise the areas based off of all your suggestions, rather, to keep it more simple than add 100 new areas.

I think how I will address Yankee Doodle and Water Canyon, the areas NOT in Zion, will be under the "Zion & Surrounding Area" rather than just "Zion". That will ease my troubled mind regarding the mislabeling of those.

I will consolidate all 3 sections of the Grand Canyons to one area.

I will remove all of Colorado and only post the Ouray and Dinosaur NM canyons.

Everything Moab will be under Moab.

Alaska will be removed, although I could of added 5 more canyons for Denali. (I found out about Alaska canyoneering on a recent trip there. Pretty cool first-descent stories going on right now from a couple I was talking to). Nearly all Class C stuff. Biggg waterfalls.

Arizona will have two sections instead of 4.

And I agree peakbaggers about the North Wash vs Powell vs Dirty Devil, etc. I'm still working out the best way to organize those and keep them separate.

Also, our meeting didn't work out as planned last Saturday due to SilverCG going to St. George ahead of schedule. But don't worry, we will take care of this very soon.

And thanks again for those who are posting and updating it. It will be better soon.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jman

This is more of a public service announcement and wanted to get some feedback (if you have the time).

Our intent is to focus on canyon and area names.

---

i do think it's good to get feedback from folks who use it. also, is there any change that would make more use it? everyone sees and uses things differently so it will be impossible to please everyone, but it is possible and good to find something that is helpful to a lot of people. so i think it's great that you're trying to assess what that is. if conditions are related in certain areas then this might partially inform on how canyons could be grouped. i think when folks have to click to see the list under some heading, then the more lists they have to click through to find a canyon or peruse, the more tedious it becomes to use a site, especially if scrolling is also involved. so if increasing subdivisions, then it should at least be intuitive what's in each one.


two things have guided me on the regional divisions i have used in the name database. the number of divisions has been due to various things, like the number of names in a region (the more names in some cases gives more reason to subdivide). of course some might see subdivision names as useful only if someone is actually familiar with the name; on the other hand, this might be a way to familiarize smaller regional names. my subdivisions fall into roughly two schemes: (1) since canyons are often tributaries of some major canyon/river, then i often use the river to define the subdivision (e.g., green and dirty devil rivers rather than robbers roost, though i do really like robbers roost). (2) others fall into special cases, primarily defined by some familiar major feature.

as i've added more names, i've broken some regions up.

i've taken north wash / trachyte out of north lake powell and made it its own region. they're two drainages but proximate.

capital reef could be dealt with in a variety of ways. previously, because of the connection of the waterpocket fold to the escalante river geologically, and because i had few canyons listed in capitol reef, i had these as a single area. after adding more, i've broken these into escalante river as separate from capitol reef / waterpocket fold. capitol reef / waterpocket fold surely could be subdivided in various ways given it's elongated nature and connection to the lake, etc.

the term 'grand staircase' applies to something much larger than what is contained in the nat'l monument that goes by that name. previously i had joined the grand staircase with zion. but after adding more names, i've broken these up into two separate regions. grand staircase and zion / virgin river (even though zion is part of the grand staircase). for me the virgin river is a catchall for any tributary of the virgin river. there are other ways of dealing with this region, but this aligns with my canyon / river viewpoint which i've given priority to.

the name cedar mesa refers to a specific mesa and is different from white canyon and its tributaries. but i think cedar mesa is a name that conjures up a larger region in southeastern utah in people's minds and is useful in that way. so i label this cedar mesa / white river & vicinity. the word vicinity is added here because i'm beginning to use that region to include canyons in the vicinity but not technically in white canyon or cedar mesa.

i think the term moab vicinity is a simple catchall for the whole region, like san rafael swell and dinosaur NM & vicinity.

i mention my divisions above just to explain my motivations FWIW. however, i do think that the way people look at and think about canyon conditions versus beta versus canyon names can be different. so different division schemes make sense depending on the context. and i do think it makes sense for Candition should to be made as useful and easy to use as possible. so i think it's great that you're trying to get a sense of what's useful to people.

If you want me to use Candition get it fixed so it always works. I haven't been able to login for over a year. I ask to get my password sent to me and that also crashes the system

The problem with Candition is it's a big piece of shit as it currently stands.

YMMV

Not to start any argument - but I've used Candition regularly over several years and have never had any major problem with it - logging on, posting, etc.Only problem has been canyons not listed. My primary use of the site is to find out water conditions in canyons so I can determine if wetsuit is needed or not. Hate to lug in a full wetsuit only to find everything dry. So I also try to post all our trips with that kind of helpful information. I think your plans for site improvement will help a lot.