Cochise Stronghold: Toofast Topos & Cochise Climbing

Nick Wilder wrote: I am urging people not to do this. If you post a route, you should have climbed it and be willing and able to write a description. From a practical point of view, "link descriptions" are a total failure for people using the mobile app (offline at least). And the MP route database is a (mostly) incredible resource of original content. I hope we can keep, and actually exceed the current quality level.

Just to be clear, I don't post the routes without climbing them. But I see your point about link descriptions for people using the mobile app. In reality I don't know how often that will be a problem for people doing most of the obscure routes I posted, but who knows. I'll write descriptions for future posts, and change the ones already up when I get a chance.

Again I am uncomfortable with how advertising is being integrated into the comments and descriptions of routes at Cochise. This time my unease was raised by comments made by 'cochiseclimbing'. For example:

Ewephoria
Peacemaker

I haven't fully pondered the matter nor would I take action without community consensus. That said my current understanding of policy and consensus based on the above discussion is that the comments stay.

hendrixson, i don't think "again" applies here. the thread was started to address toofast topos being linked to an offsite location. the new posts you referenced are a matter of direct advertising. the two are not the same. the difference being that geir is not posting comments about how he is for hire to guide people up these routes or in these areas.

John,

There is a difference betweeen Toofast's Topos and Cochise Climbing. I am not soliciting funds. Toofast's Topos have been free online since 2008 and this will remain the same after the book is finished.

Jack Ubaek wrote:hendrixson, i don't think "again" applies here. the thread was started to address toofast topos being linked to an offsite location. the new posts you referenced are a matter of direct advertising. the two are not the same. the difference being that geir is not posting comments about how he can guide people up these routes or in these areas.

+1

I really appreciate Geir posting up his topos for free. That is a community service and he deserves MASSIVE props for that! If I ever run into Geir while camping, beers are on me!

I don't think that what Cochise Climbing is doing is that big of a deal. Maybe Cochise Climbing's posts are pushing the limits of what is tolerated on this site, but I don't think it goes over the line. If we are voting, I would say let the comments stay.

I am excited to see both guidebooks!

Thanks for the constructive discussion. Keep it coming.

My interpretation is that you are welcome to link off-site and list your website provided it benefits the community. Blatantly promoting and soliciting pre-orders for a guidebook crosses the line for me personally.

Full disclosure: I have pre-ordered the book and consider "cochiseclimbing" a dear friend. I also own the out-of-print Kerry guide and will purchase the Toofast guide. I simply disagree with using the site in this manner.

Here are my thoughts:

1) Posting a link to an offsite source for information is really not intrusive. It is the users choice to follow the link or not. If someone has intellectual property that they want to share with the climbing community, they are free to share it in whatever way they choose; there is no obligation for them to put it in the public domain by posting it directly on MP.

2) As for Advertising on MP: there are ads all over MP. It's how the site makes money. Reality check people!!! This site is using everyone's contributed efforts (anyone who posts in any way) to create a place that advertisers will want to pay for ads. It's just like Facebook or any other "free" online community. Is this bad? I don't know. Someone created the platform and climbers have chosen to make it into the resource that it is. If you don't like it, then don't use it. But pretending that MP is not a capitalist venture is silly. There are banner adds right at the top. How does this relate to someone linking to a guidebook for sale? Well, if I were the owner of the site, and trying to make a profit, I'd tell that person that they have to purchase advertising space, just like the other products for sale. If the owner of the site doesn't care, then I don't see any issue. I can choose whether or not I click on a link. Is it going to get out of hand with tons of useless "advertising" links cluttering route descriptions? No, it won't. Because if the link isn't pertinent to the route, then Admin can and should remove it.

Bottom line: Users come to MP for information. Links to information are still information (even if they require registration or purchase) and they may interest some users. We're doing Mountain Project's work for free by posting route descriptions for them. There is no obligation for Geir or Scott or anyone else to make their intellectual property part of the public MP site. If the link is not relevant to the route, it should be removed, but if it is relevant to the route, then it should remain regardless of what one must do to obtain the information after following the link.

I see link, I click on the link, I see that it's to purchase a guidebook/register/whatever, I decide if I want to purchase the guidebook/register for access/whatever, I proceed with life however I want.

3) I was going to take Geir's self-rescue class, but now that I know I have to use my real name, I will find another self-rescue class to take. I will be wearing a gorilla suit while taking the class to preserve my anonymity. I don't want people to think that I might need to self-rescue some day. My pride would be compromised.

Hendrixson wrote:Thanks for the constructive discussion. Keep it coming. My interpretation is that you are welcome to link off-site and list your website provided it benefits the community. Blatantly promoting and soliciting pre-orders for a guidebook crosses the line for me personally.

John,

I do not think what I am doing is a blatant promotion of my book. I am almost certain everything that is linked to TT from MP does not require registration; it's been that way for a while now. Even if people do register on my site there is no request for money nor even any means to pre-order.

Eric,

If you wear a gorilla suit to the class I'll waive the fee just to see it!

Geir wrote: Eric, If you wear a gorilla suit to the class I'll waive the fee just to see it!

I've got a full Winnie-the-Pooh suit, can I get a free pass too??

I think the Peacemaker post w a tiny thumbnail is OK, the one under Ewephoria w a giant picture is bad form.

I still haven't discovered the function to choose which comments to print, seems "all or none" still.

I've probably inadvertently cluttered up a comments section or nine in the past, just deleted one photo on the route "Catwoman" that I realized I should have posted as a separate photo, not a comment.

When is this guide going to hit my hands???

The Best of the Cochise Stronghold: Rock Climbing
$39.99 + $6 S&H

New and current climbing info is appreciated in any way.

No need to get your panties in a bunch on cross promoting on MP. It is all over this site. Even Christian and Henderson have a dedicated space on their profile for this "Personal/Favorite web site: none specified" but have yet to use it.

If you wanted to clean up the links/spam/ads/recommedations/ETC would take.......never mind "Mission Impossible".

Certainly not "bad form". That is just one dudes opinion.

I think it's tacky to try and promote a book through route comments. But it doesn't break any rules that I am aware of.

Not sure why I need to explain this, but if I decide to print the descriptions plus comments for all routes for several areas in Indian Creek, for example, and somebody has added a large no-value-adding picture or two to the comments section of every route, my printout will double in size. ( I actually did this particular printout because I found that many times the comments had better info than the original description).

That is the sense in which it is poor form. Please keep pictures in the comments section as small as possible.

Christian wrote:Please keep pictures in the comments section as small as possible.

You can hide individual comments before printing. I do it all the time when there are comments that aren't beneficial to the route.

Oh yeah, I see the little "hide" button now, I suggested that a couple of years ago but it's possible it was already in place and I just didn't notice.

I'm seeing "tacky," "lame," "unsavory," and other opinions being given as reasons that certain types of links should be removed. I respect those feelings. But I'm not sure that someone's personal values about what is tacky or lame should determine how MP is administered. I think there is a hell of a lot of tacky and lame stuff going on in countless threads and in many route descriptions: name calling, bullying, pointless sarcasm in reply to valid questions, chest thumping, useless photos, etc. Does that mean that anything deemed "tacky" should be removed? If you find something tacky, you can: ignore it, judge the poster as an ass, don't buy their stuff, don't use their topo, go piss on the climbs they've FA'ed, whatever. But removing a link that leads to information relevant to the climb is imposing your view of "tacky" on other users and potentially preventing them from finding information that they may want.

Another way to see this: posting a link to a site to buy a guidebook is not far from posting a statement that there is a guidebook covering said climb with the name of the guidebook. Is that second thing not ok? Is it tacky? What if the person posting isn't involved in the guidebook? What if the person is involved? Way too much gray area in these sorts of discussions.

If I posted a route description that involved a wandering route and potential for rope drag and recommended a specific piece of gear that would help, say a DMM Revolver, would that be tacky? What if I linked to the Manufacturer's website to help people find it? What if I was sponsored by the manufacturer? Or if I worked for them? Where does it go from "good beta" to "tacky?"

I say: who cares. I want information on climbing posted in a way that I can choose to use it or not. I don't want someone else's ideas of etiquette to limit the information that I can potentially use. As long as it doesn't interfere with the usability of the route information, and is relevant to the route, then let it stay.

Thanks, John, for being open to a discussion on this matter! I appreciate the time that the Admin and community put into this resource.

We're going to try a new policy, stated below.

- Guidebooks should be listed using our guidebook tool. Maybe that tool need improvement... but that's the right place for them

- Posting to route comments with a link to free, genuinely useful content that is off MP is okay, though users should be able to climb the route from the content natively on MP (no "go here for the info" posts).

I think this is pretty easy to distinguish and seems fair. It means that promoting a guidebook (or other commercial services) in route comments is generally not the right place.

Hope this makes sense.

Russ Walling wrote:I find those CochiseClimbing ADS in the comments section way lame and unsavory. As an aside... say Hendrix... are you the guy wacking my posts every time I ask the simple question: are all the chipped and glued routes going to be included in the new Scott Ayres Cochise guide? The question is legit and worthy of an answer. What say you?

I share this concern. I do not think routes with glue should be placed in any Cochise guidebook. It sends a message that glue is OK down there. I do not think it is. Anyone who wants to discuss this further please feel free to PM me.

I don't think there is any question about chiseling.

Nick Wilder wrote:We're going to try a new policy, stated below. - Guidebooks should be listed using our guidebook tool. Maybe that tool need improvement... but that's the right place for them - Posting to route comments with a link to free, genuinely useful content that is off MP is okay, though users should be able to climb the route from the content natively on MP (no "go here for the info" posts). I think this is pretty easy to distinguish and seems fair. It means that promoting a guidebook (or other commercial services) in route comments is generally not the right place. Hope this makes sense.

Thanks Nick for setting a clear policy. I am away from my computer but will double check that all links to my topos do not require registration. And as always they are completely free.

I will probably move more of the topos to the "no registration" page to make them more accessible.

My book will not be anywhere close to $46! The downloadable version will likely be under $10.

Charles Vernon wrote: I've got a full Winnie-the-Pooh suit, can I get a free pass too??

Yes!!!!! I am envisioning a costume class right now...