stupid mtbr trail listings

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Penny S., Aug 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.

    Penny
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message news:vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com...
    > they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much
    easier
    > to use.
    >

    gaaaaaa...that SUCKS.

    I don't want to look for trails by name, I want to look by location. If I don't know the trail names
    in an area...HTF am I supposed to find them?

    [example] TRAILS - Ohio View: Current Products | Include Older Products Sort Products:
    Alphabetically | by Best Rating | by Number of Reviews | by Price

    [long listing of trails, alpha by trailname]

    What chucklehead designed this abomination?

    mtbr.com was marginal before, but this is just silly.

    Pete
     
  3. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Pete scribbled :
    > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > news:vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com...
    >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    >>
    >
    > gaaaaaa...that SUCKS.

    good it wasn't just me. And the locations are in parantheses... how easy it that to read!!
    >
    > I don't want to look for trails by name, I want to look by location. If I don't know the trail
    > names in an area...HTF am I supposed to find them?
    >
    > [example] TRAILS - Ohio View: Current Products | Include Older Products Sort Products:
    > Alphabetically | by Best Rating | by Number of Reviews
    > | by Price
    >
    > [long listing of trails, alpha by trailname]
    >
    > What chucklehead designed this abomination?

    some 19 year old college graduate with flash certifications no doubt.

    >
    > mtbr.com was marginal before, but this is just silly.
    >
    > Pete
     
  4. I thought I was the only one miffed by the new format . Thoughless and stupid "C-Trail" , "G-Trail"
    prefixes are REALLY dumb . The upside is that there are now rating for difficulty and arobic
    challenge which will be useful was more people provide input .

    The location ( town/city) should be first .

    --
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/free_video/

    "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message news:vj0vs86llrci84@corp.supernews.com...
    > Pete scribbled :
    > > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > > news:vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com...
    > >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    > >>
    > >
    > > gaaaaaa...that SUCKS.
    >
    > good it wasn't just me. And the locations are in parantheses... how easy
    it
    > that to read!!
    > >
    > > I don't want to look for trails by name, I want to look by location. If I don't know the trail
    > > names in an area...HTF am I supposed to find them?
    > >
    > > [example] TRAILS - Ohio View: Current Products | Include Older Products Sort Products:
    > > Alphabetically | by Best Rating | by Number of Reviews
    > > | by Price
    > >
    > > [long listing of trails, alpha by trailname]
    > >
    > > What chucklehead designed this abomination?
    >
    > some 19 year old college graduate with flash certifications no doubt.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > mtbr.com was marginal before, but this is just silly.
    > >
    > > Pete
     
  5. Jd

    Jd Guest

    "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    news:<vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com>...
    > they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    >
    > Penny

    The powers that be at mtbidiots don't even ride, so it's no surprise.

    JD
     
  6. Jd

    Jd Guest

    "John Wayne Hussein" <jwh@usa.com> wrote in message
    news:<Mb0Ya.152476$hV.9931762@twister.austin.rr.com>...
    > I thought I was the only one miffed by the new format . Thoughless and stupid "C-Trail" ,
    > "G-Trail" prefixes are REALLY dumb . The upside is that there are now rating for difficulty and
    > arobic challenge which will be useful was more people provide input .

    I beg to differ. Most of the barneys who post on those trail review ratings have overinflated
    opinions of themselves and their fitness/skill level.

    JD
     
  7. J'M Sm'Th

    J'M Sm'Th Guest

    On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 05:17:32 GMT, "John Wayne Hussein" <jwh@usa.com> wrote:
    > I thought I was the only one miffed by the new format . Thoughless and stupid "C-Trail" ,
    > "G-Trail" prefixes are REALLY dumb . The upside is that there are now rating for difficulty and
    > arobic challenge which will be useful was more people provide input .
    >
    > The location ( town/city) should be first .
    >
    > --
    > -----------------------------------------------------
    > Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
    >
    > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > news:vj0vs86llrci84@corp.supernews.com...
    > > Pete scribbled :
    > > > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > > > news:vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com...
    > > >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > > >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    > > >>
    > > >
    > > > gaaaaaa...that SUCKS.
    > >
    > > good it wasn't just me. And the locations are in parantheses... how easy
    > it
    > > that to read!!
    > > >
    > > > I don't want to look for trails by name, I want to look by location. If I don't know the trail
    > > > names in an area...HTF am I supposed to find them?
    > > >
    > > > [example] TRAILS - Ohio View: Current Products | Include Older Products Sort Products:
    > > > Alphabetically | by Best Rating | by Number of Reviews
    > > > | by Price
    > > >
    > > > [long listing of trails, alpha by trailname]
    > > >
    > > > What chucklehead designed this abomination?
    > >
    > > some 19 year old college graduate with flash certifications no doubt.
    > >
    > >
    > > >
    > > > mtbr.com was marginal before, but this is just silly.
    > > >
    > > > Pete

    You can still get the old format if you know the state and the name of the trail. For example:
    <http://www.mtbr.com/trails/Missouri/CliffCaveCountyPark.html>

    HTH.

    --
    J'm Sm'th To Reply Direct, Remove Clothes ..-.-
     
  8. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    JD scribbled :
    > "John Wayne Hussein" <jwh@usa.com> wrote in message
    > news:<Mb0Ya.152476$hV.9931762@twister.austin.rr.com>...
    >> I thought I was the only one miffed by the new format . Thoughless and stupid "C-Trail" ,
    >> "G-Trail" prefixes are REALLY dumb . The upside is that there are now rating for difficulty and
    >> arobic challenge which will be useful was more people provide input .
    >
    > I beg to differ. Most of the barneys who post on those trail review ratings have overinflated
    > opinions of themselves and their fitness/skill level.
    >
    > JD

    I agree.. the postings in the past have been a beginning reference point if that. "this trail rewls"
    "intense" and "sick" for trail decriptions and "you figure it out" for directions leave something to
    be desired.

    Penny
     
  9. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    J'm Sm'th scribbled :
    > You can still get the old format if you know the state and the name of the trail. For example:
    > <http://www.mtbr.com/trails/Missouri/CliffCaveCountyPark.html>
    >
    > HTH.

    actually it doesn't. What I've always used the site for is to find new stuff. For example, I'm
    heading over to an area I don't know ( Wenatchee etc) this weekend. So, I've always looked for
    trails by the nearest city ( Wenatchee, Cashmere, Leavenworth) This is where the old chart style was
    useful. So, I don't know trail names, that's what I am looking for!!

    And while I am ranting, I really hate how a google search for trails will take you to Trails.com,
    which is one of those sites you have to subscribe to, to get the information. It's srun by the
    publishers of Falcon, who puts out a lot of guides.

    Penny
     
  10. Bb

    Bb Guest

    On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:31:29 -0700, Penny S. wrote:

    > actually it doesn't. What I've always used the site for is to find new stuff. For example, I'm
    > heading over to an area I don't know ( Wenatchee etc) this weekend. So, I've always looked for
    > trails by the nearest city ( Wenatchee, Cashmere, Leavenworth) This is where the old chart style
    > was useful. So, I don't know trail names, that's what I am looking for!!

    Even thats kind of useless unless you know every podunk town that happens to be near your
    destination. I've spent way more time than I'd like searching for towns, only to find that they're
    way off in some completely different part of the state. Hey, I realize it would take more
    intelligence than most of those "contributors" seem to have, to ask them to put coordinates in
    there. If they had that, though, you could list every trail within "x" miles of your planned
    destination.

    Has anyone complained to the webmaster about the new format? Bitching about it on a.m-b may be
    therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish much otherwise.

    > And while I am ranting, I really hate how a google search for trails will take you to Trails.com,
    > which is one of those sites you have to subscribe to, to get the information. It's run by the
    > publishers of Falcon, who puts out a lot of guides.

    Not just subscribe, but pay $30/year for. Its cheaper just to buy their books (but maybe that's what
    they had in mind).

    --
    -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
     
  11. Bomba

    Bomba Guest

    Penny S. wrote:

    > And while I am ranting, I really hate how a google search for trails will take you to Trails.com,
    > which is one of those sites you have to subscribe to, to get the information. It's srun by the
    > publishers of Falcon, who puts out a lot of guides.

    I tend to look at the cached section that's relevant in Google, pick up some relevant names and then
    hunt for those names in Google. Works quite nicely.

    Does anyone have any experience of (the subscribed section of) trails.com?
     
  12. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    BB scribbled :
    > On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:31:29 -0700, Penny S. wrote:
    >
    >> actually it doesn't. What I've always used the site for is to find new stuff. For example, I'm
    >> heading over to an area I don't know ( Wenatchee etc) this weekend. So, I've always looked for
    >> trails by the nearest city ( Wenatchee, Cashmere, Leavenworth) This is where the old chart style
    >> was useful. So, I don't know trail names, that's what I am looking for!!
    >
    > Even thats kind of useless unless you know every podunk town that happens to be near your
    > destination. I've spent way more time than I'd like searching for towns, only to find that they're
    > way off in some completely different part of the state. Hey, I realize it would take more
    > intelligence than most of those "contributors" seem to have, to ask them to put coordinates in
    > there. If they had that, though, you could list every trail within "x" miles of your planned
    > destination.
    >
    > Has anyone complained to the webmaster about the new format? Bitching about it on a.m-b may be
    > therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish much otherwise.
    >
    >> And while I am ranting, I really hate how a google search for trails will take you to Trails.com,
    >> which is one of those sites you have to subscribe to, to get the information. It's run by the
    >> publishers of Falcon, who puts out a lot of guides.
    >
    > Not just subscribe, but pay $30/year for. Its cheaper just to buy their books (but maybe that's
    > what they had in mind).

    the library is free. ;-) Just don't have time to get the book that I think will have the goods
    in it...;-(
     
  13. Paul Beakley

    Paul Beakley Guest

    On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:

    > they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    >IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    >
    >Penny

    There are other options that will yield better results:

    * Local knowledge -- make contact with locals who ride, or clubs

    * Good guide books

    They all take time and/or money. You get what you pay for.

    There isn't a single (free) source of trail information on the Internet that comes close to what
    you'll get from actual humans, or a well-written book or map.

    p.

    Outside America: Mountain Bike America -- Arizona Guidebook available at bike shops, bookstores,
    and online
    (480) 756-2460 | (602) 370-7107 cell http://www.mountainbikearizona.com
     
  14. Penny S.

    Penny S. Guest

    Paul Beakley scribbled :
    > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:
    >
    >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    >>
    >> Penny
    >
    > There are other options that will yield better results:
    >
    > * Local knowledge -- make contact with locals who ride, or clubs
    >
    > * Good guide books
    >
    > They all take time and/or money. You get what you pay for.
    >
    > There isn't a single (free) source of trail information on the Internet that comes close to what
    > you'll get from actual humans, or a well-written book or map.
    >
    > p.
    >

    thanks for the input but you missed the point completely. Please re-read the whole thread.

    penny
    >
    > Outside America: Mountain Bike America -- Arizona Guidebook available at bike shops, bookstores,
    > and online
    > (480) 756-2460 | (602) 370-7107 cell http://www.mountainbikearizona.com
     
  15. Reco Diver

    Reco Diver Guest

    "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    news:<vj5q3nrc75m95e@corp.supernews.com>...
    > Paul Beakley scribbled :
    > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:
    > >
    > >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    > >>
    > >> Penny
    > >
    > > There are other options that will yield better results:
    > >
    > > * Local knowledge -- make contact with locals who ride, or clubs
    > >
    > > * Good guide books
    > >
    > > They all take time and/or money. You get what you pay for.
    > >
    > > There isn't a single (free) source of trail information on the Internet that comes close to what
    > > you'll get from actual humans, or a well-written book or map.
    > >
    > > p.
    > >
    >
    > thanks for the input but you missed the point completely. Please re-read the whole thread.
    >
    >
    > penny

    Come on ... he didn't miss the point. He just saw an opening to work his book into the thread.

    R
     
  16. Jd

    Jd Guest

    reco_diver@hotmail.com (Reco Diver) wrote in message
    news:<db285975.0308072215.efab4cc@posting.google.com>...
    > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > news:<vj5q3nrc75m95e@corp.supernews.com>...
    > > Paul Beakley scribbled :
    > > > On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >> they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    > > >> IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    > > >>
    > > >> Penny
    > > >
    > > > There are other options that will yield better results:
    > > >
    > > > * Local knowledge -- make contact with locals who ride, or clubs
    > > >
    > > > * Good guide books
    > > >
    > > > They all take time and/or money. You get what you pay for.
    > > >
    > > > There isn't a single (free) source of trail information on the Internet that comes close to
    > > > what you'll get from actual humans, or a well-written book or map.
    > > >
    > > > p.
    > > >
    > >
    > > thanks for the input but you missed the point completely. Please re-read the whole thread.
    > >
    > >
    > > penny
    >
    > Come on ... he didn't miss the point. He just saw an opening to work his book into the thread.

    I was thinking the same thing when I read his post. Kinda cheesy if you ask me.

    JD
     
  17. Paul Beakley

    Paul Beakley Guest

    On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 16:59:51 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:

    >thanks for the input but you missed the point completely. Please re-read the whole thread.

    Actually I think I have read the whole thread, unless my stupid news service has been deleting posts
    on me again. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears you were complaining about how mtbr has changed
    its trail listings and now it's harder to use. My reply to that was that the trail listings on mtbr
    aren't a good source of trail information. Your reply somewhere further down the same thread says
    the same thing.

    (And I agree that it's "even more" useless than it used to be -- although in this case "even more"
    is like saying it's worth less than nothing, which is still nothing).

    Honestly this wasn't meant as an opportunity to pitch my book. I'm just airing a long-standing beef
    I have with online trail information: other than being free, there's no reason to use it. It's
    uniformly low-quality (no matter how it's filtered or shuffled or listed), and often misleading.

    p.

    Outside America: Mountain Bike America -- Arizona Guidebook available at bike shops, bookstores,
    and online
    (480) 756-2460 | (602) 370-7107 cell http://www.mountainbikearizona.com
     
  18. Kathleen

    Kathleen Guest

    Reco Diver wrote:

    > "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message
    > news:<vj5q3nrc75m95e@corp.supernews.com>...
    >
    >>Paul Beakley scribbled :
    >>
    >>>On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>they changed the format and now it's really hard to use. Really sucks
    >>>>IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much easier to use.
    >>>>
    >>>>Penny
    >>>
    >>>There are other options that will yield better results:
    >>>
    >>>* Local knowledge -- make contact with locals who ride, or clubs
    >>>
    >>>* Good guide books
    >>>
    >>>They all take time and/or money. You get what you pay for.
    >>>
    >>>There isn't a single (free) source of trail information on the Internet that comes close to what
    >>>you'll get from actual humans, or a well-written book or map.
    >>>
    >>>p.
    >>>
    >>
    >>thanks for the input but you missed the point completely. Please re-read the whole thread.
    >>
    >>
    >>penny
    >
    >
    > Come on ... he didn't miss the point. He just saw an opening to work his book into the thread.
    >
    > R

    Ooh, you're descriminating...

    If he'd made a previous post, or series of posts on the subject, it would be fine for him to post
    the google url, correct?

    Kathleen
     
  19. Shaun Rimmer

    Shaun Rimmer Guest

    Penny S. <pennydeletes@invalidcet.com> wrote in message news:vj0jbt7822o957@corp.supernews.com...
    > they changed the format and now it's really hard to use.

    No it isn't.

    > Really sucks
    > IMO... I know, should not be surprised. The old chart style was much
    easier
    > to use.

    No it wasn't.

    Shaun aRe
     
  20. Paladin

    Paladin Guest

    dij@usafcct.com (JD) wrote in message news:<ebf270c9.0308061105.78e9f6ed@posting.google.com>...
    > "John Wayne Hussein" <jwh@usa.com> wrote in message
    > news:<Mb0Ya.152476$hV.9931762@twister.austin.rr.com>...
    > > I thought I was the only one miffed by the new format . Thoughless and stupid "C-Trail" ,
    > > "G-Trail" prefixes are REALLY dumb . The upside is that there are now rating for difficulty and
    > > arobic challenge which will be useful was more people provide input .
    >
    > I beg to differ. Most of the barneys who post on those trail review ratings have overinflated
    > opinions of themselves and their fitness/skill level.
    >
    > JD

    Yeah, like me. Or at least it looks like it. I rated a trail "advanced" several years back, when you
    consider I said ride *up* it, and how it rode *before* the trail nazis sanitized it and made it
    nearly wheel-chair accessible. Now everybody thinks I'm a mtndewd barney. May as well buy a dh bike
    and take a shuttle now.

    Paladin
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...