stupid mtbr trail listings

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Pete scribbled :

Quoted message said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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!!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Pete

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!! gohip.comfree videoOpen ↗

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete scribbled :

Quoted message said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

that to read!!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Pete

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

"John Wayne Hussein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

John Wayne Hussein said:

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!! gohip.comfree videoOpen ↗

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pete scribbled :

Quoted message said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> 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

Quoted message said:

that to read!!

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 ..-.-

JD scribbled :

Quoted message said:

"John Wayne Hussein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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

J'm Sm'th scribbled :

Quoted message said:

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

Penny S. said:

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? [censored] about it on a.m-b may be
therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish much otherwise.

Quoted message said:

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)

Penny S. said:

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?

BB scribbled :

Quoted message said:

Penny S. said:

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? [censored] about it on a.m-b may be
therapeutic, but doesn't accomplish much otherwise.

Quoted message said:

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...;-(

Penny S. said:

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 mountainbikearizona.commountainbikearizona.comOpen ↗

Paul Beakley scribbled :

Quoted message said:

Penny S. said:

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

Quoted message said:

Outside America: Mountain Bike America -- Arizona Guidebook available at bike shops, bookstores,
and online
(480) 756-2460 | (602) 370-7107 cell mountainbikearizona.commountainbikearizona.comOpen ↗

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Paul Beakley scribbled :

Quoted message said:

Penny S. said:

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

[email hidden] (Reco Diver) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Paul Beakley scribbled :

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <[email hidden]> 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

Penny S. said:

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 mountainbikearizona.commountainbikearizona.comOpen ↗

Reco Diver said:

"Penny S." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Paul Beakley scribbled :

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:35:43 -0700, "Penny S." <[email hidden]> 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

Penny S. <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

they changed the format and now it's really hard to use.

No it isn't.

Quoted message said:

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

easier

Quoted message said:

to use.

No it wasn't.

Shaun aRe

[email hidden] (JD) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"John Wayne Hussein" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

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