Trail Directory

Norm said:
Lots of good stuff to chew on here.



More details about my idea would be that we all have day jobs that keep us out of the house from 7:00 am until 6:00 pm so whatever is easy works best :) Well except Jake and he wouldn't know a DB front-end if it bit him on the ass.

OK, but seriously, there's a lot of work involved so whatever seems to make the most bang for the least effort would be the best way to go. It could be an open discussion on a park-by-park basis, where the regulars would contribute and you would come up with a general consensus. Then over time maybe you refine it. Hard to say, I'm making this up as I go along. Crankfire has some good thoughts but some of them reek of effort.

Also I have a fundamental problem giving random poster X the same voice-weight as, say, Frank's opinion of Allaire. So how do you weight user ratings? Just adds more difficulty. Ideally, having a user ratings system on the reviews like Amazon books would be great. And highly rated users get more say in whatever ratings you come up with.

Lots of stuff to talk about, different directions to go, many of which involve astounding amounts of programming but could be an interesting challenge.
Click to expand...

I know that you're after quality control, but maybe you should give the "posterXs" of the world a bit more credit. I qualify as a "posterX" and I don't think my input would screw things up. And Norm, I have to disagree on your example of Frank's rating of Allaire being more valuable than Joe Shmoe's. Yes, Frank knows Allaire best, it's his home turf, and he does TM there, but don't you think those factors would make him the least bit biased toward Allaire?

On the other hand, reviewing a trail after one ride can kind of skew things. Someone can't possibly have enough knowledge of a place at that point to give a valid rating. However, there is still plenty of value in a first impression. So maybe the remedy in this case is to weighted ratings based on # of times the user has ridden the trail.

Perhaps there could be a few mandatory questions (such as the afforementioned # of times ridden) the user has to answer before submitting the review/rating. Depending on the answers, the user's review would contribute X% to the overall rating

Reviewer ratings are not a bad idea.

All sounds a bit complex.

In the end, I think you just have to let people make up there own minds as to how valid the individual ratings are. It's the easiest way.
 
I'm torn. On one hand Tim's reasoning for letting us all contribute as opposed to selected reviewers makes complete sense as does his suggestion for a couple initial questions to sort out those unqualified to review and rate. It's a public forum and people could feel alienated if not included.

But I also see the benefit of one very well-written page-long review (though not by someone invested in that county or trail system) that offers suggested routes, detailed ratings and more in one voice. Less about the rating and more about the review. But for this option I would definitely suggest the review be offered up to the forum in advance for approval.

Either way the Technical, Stunts, Hills, Distance Rides, SS-ready, etc specific rating system makes complete sense.
 
I would be all for a review of the trail system posted by a true local, like a JORBA chapter head who stewards the park, an old timer from the area, a ride-it-so-much-I-know-the-animals type of person, or a combo of the three. Then allow joe-mtbnj reader to rate it. Once enough ratings are posted the average will be as close to accurate as possible.

My favorite way to get info on a trail is to go ride it, so I am not real particular about ratings, but I can see how they would be a draw to some people. I DO like to see trailhead info(more is better, GPS, directions, whatever), suggested routes, trail markings/names, approximate mileage, approximate elevation gain, and any local tips. Tips like "closed for hunting ___dates", "parking permit required", etc.
 
You can create a file to send out to a handful of locals from each trail, solicit locals for trail write-ups. Then take what you like best from what comes back and meld it into one kick ass trail review. That way you avoid one persons biased opinion, and get the biased opinions of many :D
 
I like Ken's idea for the mixed opinions. Perhaps a short bio of the reviewer should be included to help the readers see where they fit in.

Another thought is; I do not think reviews that make mention of trails that are not legally open to bikes should be included. I am not in favor of censoring opinions, but being a Jorba supporter, I think the reports should reflect responsible use when printed publicly. Perhaps the Jorba chapter heads would be willing to advise on trail designations in each park.
 
Tim,

Again, it needs to be feasible. Adding a DB entry by hand, popping in an "agreed upon" review, and going from there is easy. Creating an entirely new review site is, as you say, complex. On top of that, if I go through the 2-3 month development time and have the average trail get 2 reviews I'm never going to do anything productive again. So there's a balance also between work invested and utility. Given how many people post trail reviews here, I'm not inclined to think it will be a slam dunk of usefullness. OTOH, maybe once you build it, people will come.

Point taken on Frank/Allaire, and you're probably right that I might be in a better position to review Allaire after this past weekend's ride, since I got the grand tour from a local. I'm not biased which is good. And I'm told we hit basically every trail you can hit. OTOH, it's not always going to be that way. And if I didn't get a tour I'd probably label it as a park that is a complex network of trails that seem to go nowhere.

In the end there's never going to be a way to make everyone happy. You can put questions like "Are you a racer?" and so on to get a better feel for the reviewer. But then people invariably answer shit like "spaghetti" or lie and skew the results.

Perhaps we've all become too bent by our corporate dealings and we're talking about this too much. Perhaps we need to just try to do this in some sort of experimental thread where people give a review and we see what it shakes out as?
 
Stfu!!

Turn off your phone,throw the GPS under the seat and drive whatever miles to a park you've never been to.Ride in,get lost and then have some hellish mechanical then walk aimlessly thru the woods freezing to death or bonking til you finally locate your car at sunset.Then after a while you'll gain some real experience and knowledge and become what you are seeking.....
 
Norm said:
Tim,

Again, it needs to be feasible. Adding a DB entry by hand, popping in an "agreed upon" review, and going from there is easy. Creating an entirely new review site is, as you say, complex. On top of that, if I go through the 2-3 month development time and have the average trail get 2 reviews I'm never going to do anything productive again. So there's a balance also between work invested and utility. Given how many people post trail reviews here, I'm not inclined to think it will be a slam dunk of usefullness. OTOH, maybe once you build it, people will come.

Point taken on Frank/Allaire, and you're probably right that I might be in a better position to review Allaire after this past weekend's ride, since I got the grand tour from a local. I'm not biased which is good. And I'm told we hit basically every trail you can hit. OTOH, it's not always going to be that way. And if I didn't get a tour I'd probably label it as a park that is a complex network of trails that seem to go nowhere.

In the end there's never going to be a way to make everyone happy. You can put questions like "Are you a racer?" and so on to get a better feel for the reviewer. But then people invariably answer shit like "spaghetti" or lie and skew the results.

Perhaps we've all become too bent by our corporate dealings and we're talking about this too much. Perhaps we need to just try to do this in some sort of experimental thread where people give a review and we see what it shakes out as?
Click to expand...

Personally, I get more out of what someone has to say about a trail, rather than how many stars they rate a trail. So maybe this whole thing is as simple as just having users write reviews and foregoing ratings altogether.
And maybe you can have it so there's an official mtbnj review, followed by user reviews.
 
Norm said:
On top of that, if I go through the 2-3 month development time and have the average trail get 2 reviews I'm never going to do anything productive again. So there's a balance also between work invested and utility. Given how many people post trail reviews here, I'm not inclined to think it will be a slam dunk of usefullness. OTOH, maybe once you build it, people will come.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have been there a couple times already - typically I tell myself that whatever module "failed" (clubs, map markup...) was not fun and usable enough.

There is probably some truth to my line of hopeless thought, but I think your thinking here is the real culprit :(
 
I think if you take this

tlnj said:
Personally, I get more out of what someone has to say about a trail, rather than how many stars they rate a trail. So maybe this whole thing is as simple as just having users write reviews and foregoing ratings altogether.
And maybe you can have it so there's an official mtbnj review, followed by user reviews.
Click to expand...

and this

Crankfire said:
Exactly. I have been there a couple times already - typically I tell myself that whatever module "failed" (clubs, map markup...) was not fun and usable enough.

There is probably some truth to my line of hopeless thought, but I think your thinking here is the real culprit :(
Click to expand...

and put it in a blender you really just come up with something like having a static post in each park where people can post reviews. This is easy because it means no development, plus it opens it up for everyone. Then you can add a single field to the DB table for a park, say reviews, and make it a link to that thread. Also, any BS posted in those will be deleted because it needs to be as useful as possible.

I also just prefer a written write-up. I don't think a technical rating of 3.5 means much. I also think the MTBR "aerobic" rating is silly, as a flat road is as aerobic as you want it to be if you try to go 24 mph for an hour.

So what park do we want to start this trail review thread in? TLNJ, I'm looking for your first trail review. :) Name the park and you can set this whale to sail.
 
Norm said:
I think if you take this



and this



and put it in a blender you really just come up with something like having a static post in each park where people can post reviews. This is easy because it means no development, plus it opens it up for everyone. Then you can add a single field to the DB table for a park, say reviews, and make it a link to that thread. Also, any BS posted in those will be deleted because it needs to be as useful as possible.

I also just prefer a written write-up. I don't think a technical rating of 3.5 means much. I also think the MTBR "aerobic" rating is silly, as a flat road is as aerobic as you want it to be if you try to go 24 mph for an hour.

So what park do we want to start this trail review thread in? TLNJ, I'm looking for your first trail review. :) Name the park and you can set this whale to sail.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan Norm. Keeping it simple is the way to go.

Oh boy, you're giving me homework? I'll start working something up for Wawayanda. I'm riding there this weekend (if conditions permit), so I'll have something by early next week.

Haven't been riding enough lately to just bang out a review cold. I need a great ride to inspire me.

In the meantime, I'm sure you guys could write some kick ass reviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom