 Poster: A snowHead
|
Following on from the other "advice" thread ........
Any Tom, Dick and Sally can post here and give "advice". People have different opinions and it's good to get them all but I'm getting concerned that the advice is conflicting and making it difficult for others (especially newbies) to use. Maybe it's just that we are out of season but where opinions differ greatly then flame wars (and for some reason gardening discussions) tend to start.
Anybody agree and if so is there anything we can do to make the situation better?
Perhaps if people qualified their advice (i.e. indicated the source - e.g. Personnel experience, ski guide or just hearsay etc) it would make the thread more useful to everybody.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I think that we should keep in mind that there is unlikely to be a single "right answer" to any question posted here, so two pieces of apparently conflicting advice might in fact both be sensible.
Whenever I contribute advice based on my meagre skiing experience I will try to include as much detail as possible so the reader can make a sensible judgement about what I'm saying. Beyond that I'm not sure that we should expect people to qualify their statements with the source of their advice - to me that seems a bit too much like requiring formal citations for any assertion we make or advice we offer. I prefer to keep things more informal than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
There's no point in expecting people not to indulge in argument, pointless or otherwise, on any topic. It's part of the fun. The trouble is, it tends to obscure the original question and answers, and must put people, especially newcomers, off.
It would be courteous to those who ask sensible questions, especially newcomers to skiing/boarding, to keep the arguments in a different thread from the original question and its answers. If the posters don't do that, perhaps admin could. This would not prevent posters to the original thread from expressing different views from other posters, but they should do so without arguing, chucking statisitics about and so on, if they want to stay in the original thread. It would be up to posters to make their answers sufficiently non argumentative to ensure that they stay in the original thread (if that's what they want).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think there are right answers for some stuff, for a lot of things clearly not.
Where I have a huge problem is the significant amount that's posted which the author has no direct experience of, I could about live with that if it came with a health warning. Some of it's just parroting what is apparently some sort of common wisdom.
What's intimidating for newbies and lurkers I suspect is the apparent expertise of their peers. Imagine if you're a guy that's been skiing for a couple of years, enjoyed it and chanced by here. Lurking you'd discover everyone else with your experience seems to know everything there is to know about skiing, skis, boots, technique, ski schools.
So we get posts full of references to "pow" or "fresh" or some buzzword nonsense intended to do nothing other than dazzle the passer by, and we get about no posts at all from a guy who took his first week skiing in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
richmond, that all sounds a little like censorship to me. More to the point, the reservation being expressed is that some of the answers aren't accurate. The effect of the approach you suggest is to confirm that we're not all genuinely interested in answering any question but more interested in demonstrating our knowledge. The replies we need to lose are the inaccurate ones, not the people who pull them up on it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
As this is an open forum and the internet is world wide it is impossible to " control " what people post and rightly so subject to the normal rules - good taste, libel laws, etc... The moderators are there to ensure that the general rules are not broken but not to edit posts that have been made in good faith.
To answer questions more accurately posters should give a lot more specific detail of what they want from a ski holiday in order to ensure that a more targeted reply is given.
Sometimes its fun when the thread goes " off piste " like the thread you mention, but it usually comes back to the subject matter.
Flame wars are impossible to stop starting and they can start because of misunderstandings and people trying score points. The only way to avoid them is to ignore the threads when they arise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ise, it wasn't intended to be censorship at all. I'm all for people arguing about anything at all, and saying pretty much whatever they like, just not in threads in which people, especially newcomers, are after a bit of advice/info. The argument can go on in different thread.
I think that it is occasionally true that posters are as interested in showing off their knowledge and taking their hobby horses out for a canter as they are in helping someone out. It's human nature, and we're probably all capable of it.
You're right that my wheeze doesn't deal specifically with inaccurate info. Difficult to do that thoroughly without including in the original thread everybody's pet theories and 'statistics', as happens now, with the attendant disadvantages. Nevertheless, I think that in most cases the mods could steer a course which was helpful to the questioner and siphon off the other posts into a separate thread (which of course would be open for the questioner and everbody else to read if they wanted to).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone is entitled to thier opinion and equally everyone has the right to ignore.
This is a pointless argument. Basically why ask for an opinion if you have an answer in mind. If you want advice that is "reliable" ask the ski shop and dont waste evryones time here
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
2plank, good point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This advice thing happens with holiday resorts, ski reviews, ski instruction etc.
I've seen people give advice on skis (and ski conditions) they haven't skied and resorts they haven't visted for example. If I give ill-informed advice for whatever reason I'd rather somebody set me straight or at least (diplomatically) tried to let me see another point of view which was qualified in some way. It's what I try to do.
Of course there is often no right or wrong answer but the danger is that the people in the know get fed up of being contradicted by hearsay and give up trying to help. At the end of the day it's up to the person giving advice to make up his/her mind from the various posts but if it ends up being a load of hearsay or people reading off what they seen in a brochure etc then he/she may go away with the wrong conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I think most of us are intelligent enough to realise that the 'advice' is someone's personal opinion in many instances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2plank wrote: |
Everyone is entitled to thier opinion and equally everyone has the right to ignore.
This is a pointless argument. Basically why ask for an opinion if you have an answer in mind. If you want advice that is "reliable" ask the ski shop and dont waste evryones time here |
Hopefully it will be a constructive disscussion not an argument.
Some ski shops aim to satisfy the customer, the majority in my experience try to satisfy the shops profit targets. It's better to find a list of skis that might suit you, find someone who rents / sells them and then demo.
Just because you ask the Sales guy in the Lada showroom for advice doesn't mean you will end up with a good car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
Any advice is always coloured by experience or lack of it. Some people will recommend a resort because they have had a lot of great holidays there. Others will recommend a place because they have a commercial interest there. It's always going to be a juggling act to sort through and find out what is completely unbiased advice. I guess the problem is that many newbies don't know who has "attachments" to places and who (if any of us) are completely objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Elizabeth B wrote: |
| Any advice is always coloured by experience or lack of it. Some people will recommend a resort because they have had a lot of great holidays there. Others will recommend a place because they have a commercial interest there. It's always going to be a juggling act to sort through and find out what is completely unbiased advice. I guess the problem is that many newbies don't know who has "attachments" to places and who (if any of us) are completely objective. |
Which is all fine, of course. But, you've missed out those who recommend a resort because it's the only place they've been or one of very few, and then offer insightful comparisions with places they've not been. There's no comparison at all to you guys and recommending the Jungfrau all the time, this is most certainly not what I mean at least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
On a public forum unqualified people express unqualified opinions. You know it's a public forum and you decide who you want to believe and who has a bee in their bonnet/vested interest/likes to appear knowledgeable but isn't/is genuinely just trying to be helpful etc. That's part of the fun and I doubt many lurkers/users are naive enough to believe everything they read here, such that they'll go off and decide anything solely upon it anyway.
Once you go down the route of controlling the quality of advice, with citations and references, maybe a CV of social and preferably professional skiing experience you will lose the informal friendly relaxed nature of the forum. Few people will post. Too much like hard work. Not fun anymore. I suspect few would ask questions either. They'd be as afraid of asking a stupid one, as of posting a stupid answer. I believe posters should ask questions however they like. They might get more useful stuff back if they ask more carefully but it's up to them. I don't have a problem with other people posting what I perceive to be inaccurate answers either. If appropriate I'll just disagree and offer my own opinion. Of course you can choose to cite your sources/experience if you like - it might add weight to your opinion.
Censorship ('cos that's what it is) could work to isolate flame wars but do we want that? The moderators could decide that when a poster is commenting on another post without contributing his own advice to the thread at the same time, it is just starting a fire and do whatever with the post. Or we could all just try to keep it constructive and positive.
Even when one has a lot of experience of something it may not be enough for others to feel you have proved a case in any meaningful way. It seems sometimes even when some data is available no-one can be bothered to analyse and interpret it to try to properly prove that a point made might in fact be wrong.
Finally, people post all sorts of cr@p on public medical forums and doctors (who by the way need actual qualifications to establish their expertise) don't respond ascerbically to them or engage in trying to get them to make themselves look dumber.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 28-06-05 14:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| slikedges wrote: |
| On a public forum unqualified people express unqualified opinions. You know it's a public forum and you decide who you want to believe and who has a bee in their bonnet/vested interest/likes to appear knowledgeable but isn't/is genuinely just trying to be helpful etc. That's part of the fun and I doubt many lurkers/users are naive enough to believe everything they read here, such that they'll go off and decide anything solely upon it anyway. |
This is the premise I have a problem with, I find it difficult on occasion to spot what's true and what's not. I've read several ski "reviews" for example that talk about skis I've never used which sound wrong to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| slikedges wrote: |
On a related point people post all sorts of cr@p on public medical forums and doctors (who by the way need actual qualifications to establish their expertise) don't respond ascerbically to them or engage in trying to get them to make themselves look dumber. |
That's exactly what I hope we can prevent here.
I'm not one for strict rules etc but in the interest of keeping good advice on this forum going - What about self censorship, things like ....
1. By all means talk about where you have skied but don't knock a place unless you have skied there, by all means say things like "from XYZ guide it looks low and the SCGB guide doesn't show good snow reliability" but "I heard from somewhere that X country was crap that's why eveybody skis in France" I don't consider as good advice.
2. Don't select one ski from a list of 6 just because it's the ski you ski at the moment but you haven't tried the others on the list.
3. If somebody comes up with valid information that proves your information was incorrect you can take it as an attack on your ego or admit something may be askew with your source. We all get fed wrong info at times. It might even be better to edit it out.
4. If somebody does put some misleading info (or opinion) up try not to be too hard on them for two reasons
a) It will only get their back up and start a flame war leadiing to flower talk.
b) It might be me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
There are two very important points to remember here.
One is that when u make a statement on an important matter, try to qualify your standpoint eg. 'in my opinion (IMO)', 'as far as I know (AFAIK)' , 'it is generally accepted in the/my profession' or 'xxx told me so don't argue or he'll flame u' etc.
If u know a thing to be fact, say so; if it is opinion, try to make that clear.
Nevertheless, the other point is that when u are aware that someone has made an error, try to address it in a positive, helpful manner rather than "pounce on them to discredit their buffoonery". So u may think someone's wrong, u may know they are but in shouting your opinion too loudly u risk appearing arogant and sanctimonious. Worse, it is the person who originally asked the question who loses out if your response to an inaccurate or mis-put answer leads a thread toward bitching, arguing and pedantic point scoring.
This is the difference between, "I think u might find that actually..." and "what a load of cr@p".
If u know better, be proud of the fact and share your knowledge but don't put others down for it.
Yes, this is a public forum: everybody expects inaccuracy and error. Anyone who takes a single post from a stranger as gospel and spends their year's skiing budget based on that advice alone is obviously a fool who deserves to be parted from their money and to them I would like to say "SnowHeads is well worth the £500/year membership fee".
The strength of this forum is that no-one does have to take just one opinion as gospel because someone will come along and respectfully  , supportively  , intelligently  put another point of view... 30 times over 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
I would like to say "SnowHeads is well worth the £500/year membership fee".
|
Out-of-context quote of the year!
How do we take out these mortgages, and what proof of income is required?
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Tue 28-06-05 15:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin,
| Quote: |
"SnowHeads is well worth the £500/year membership fee".
|
So sorry. Didn't realise I had to pay. Who shall I make the cheque out to?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Make it out to:
Campaign to Acknowledge Snow Heads (or C.A.S.H. for short), and send it here...
WTFH
99 Acacia Avenue
Upper Lifcue
Snowdonia
SK1 5NO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(an epic joke that only a native or ambassador could get away with)
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, C.A.S.H....C.A.S.H.....Hey! Not anything to do with the anti-smoking lobby are you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Personally, I have got some very good advise from and it worked out very well for me. But at the end of the day it was my decision and if it had turned out wrong no one is to blame.
A few years ago we went to Passo Tonale in January and I knew nothing about the resort. The previous year it had a base of 3 m, but we arrived to see grass in January at 1900m!!!! You pays yer money ye takes yer chance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth B, "Some people will recommend a resort because they have had a lot of great holidays there. Others will recommend a place because they have a commercial interest there. It's always going to be a juggling act to sort through and find out what is completely unbiased advice. I guess the problem is that many newbies don't know who has "attachments" to places and who (if any of us) are completely objective."
Yes - but look at the location under the name or in the profile. Also, some of us who have a "commercial interest" may have this because we went to wherever and thought it was so brilliant we stayed (in my case for nearly 16 years now). So therefore, of course the advice is biased(which I believe I regularly admit), but it may be biased more by real belief than by commercial interests. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
DON'T WORRY
As the person that started the earlier "Advice needed" thread, here is my feedback
I found all the advice very useful and the arguments over France vs Austria were informative if not completely relevant.
The important thing to remember is at least you are all here giving advice to newbies like me - this is the ONLY place I have been able to find out real information - not brochures or holiday company sponsored forums or forums that no one uses.
I have spent many years travelling and can book myself independent holidays all over the world, but Skiing seems to work very differently and when you don't know how skiing works it is baffling.
So all I can say is, don't get too hung up on worrying what I might think, realise I am just happy that you are all out there.
Thanks again
Kos
p.s. I have just posted another advice needed thread as I now have a new question! All advice gratefully accepted
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
IMHO most opinions on here are very biased, look at the huge anti Salomon threads, and other such OTT threads on the benefits of certain hardware.
What, IMHO, is useful is first hand experience on resorts visited, I personally would take any ski/boot reviews with a pinch of salt and try them myself if I could.
The right honourable admin makes some valid points 
regards,
greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Good grief, any hill with snow on it can give you fun. When you’re starting out, it’s more a question of where you should avoid rather than where’s the best. All the above garbage about qualified advice is just ‘p¡ssing up the wall’ territory marking that diminishes this community.
We may harbor mixed opinions about many subjects, but snow is a constant that can only be defined within very narrow expressions of enjoyment. If you’re going to get into an argument about the merits of one opinion over another re snow or a resort . . . all you’re doing is demonstrating a lack of respect for the sport you claim to enjoy.
I’m ashamed by this thread 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I don't think there's a big problem in demonstrating that people get so hung up about the places they love, or loathe, and are so keen to share their loving/loathing that they sometimes get a bit carried away... It's the whole point about an enthusiasts' site, isn't it? If people weren't passionate about it, they wouldn't bother to spend time replying to a stranger's request for advice. But also, there are loads of different skiers, and different places. Even if people stick to what they have experienced at first hand, they won't agree. I expect that that some of the places I like (e.g. Notre Dame de Bellecombe) would be dismissed instantly by some of the people who always go, for instance, to Val D'Isere. No nightlife, full of funny French people in one piece suits, not enough challenging ski-ing, no terrifying cliffs to fall off, etc etc. So yes, if people want focussed information, they need to ask focussed questions. But unfocussed ones give rise to such entertaining exchanges....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
pam w, I like Notre Dame de Bellecombe very much indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Masque wrote: |
Good grief, any hill with snow on it can give you fun. When you’re starting out, it’s more a question of where you should avoid rather than where’s the best. All the above garbage about qualified advice is just ‘p¡ssing up the wall’ territory marking that diminishes this community.
We may harbor mixed opinions about many subjects, but snow is a constant that can only be defined within very narrow expressions of enjoyment. If you’re going to get into an argument about the merits of one opinion over another re snow or a resort . . . all you’re doing is demonstrating a lack of respect for the sport you claim to enjoy.
I’m ashamed by this thread |
Snow constant? Just my opinion but I'd say it's fairly unpredictable hence the reason I and others say book as late as possible.
"Pissing up the wall territory marking" can't see how you come to this conclusion.
You don't need to be ashamed by this thread I started it. Not because I'm interested in any pissing contest but so that when I meet other people who are involved in the sport (resort workers, guides etc) they stop saying things like "have you seen that snowheads forum? Some people don't half post some cr@p on there, it's obvious some don't have a clue what they are talking about".
I have a lot of respect for skiing and skiers of any level. I have a lot of respect for people who through experience contribute good advice to this forum. Don't want the hearsay drowning out the good advice because the people with sound advice will just stop contributing, as has happened in other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| DB wrote: |
| ........so that when I meet other people who are involved in the sport (resort workers, guides etc) they stop saying things like "have you seen that snowheads forum? Some people don't half post some cr@p on there, it's obvious some don't have a clue what they are talking about". |
So they do say that now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
DB, I really like the scholarly nature of your postings on this thread. In contrast, on another thread, you recently requested advice on "S&M restaurants in Vienna".
Regrettably I can't help you with that enquiry, but it's good to see you progress towards the inevitable: a professorship of skiing.
For the record, I'd regard DB's advice on Austrian resorts as the best available on snowHeads. He is also an expert on Viennese coffee houses and cake shops.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 29-06-05 9:16; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| ........so that when I meet other people who are involved in the sport (resort workers, guides etc) they stop saying things like "have you seen that snowheads forum? Some people don't half post some cr@p on there, it's obvious some don't have a clue what they are talking about". |
So they do say that now? |
Yes, some of the posts here do cause a certain amusement in some quarters, I've had people mail me links to ones they find especially amusing.
That can't be a bad thing though, at least people are reading it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| marc gledhill wrote: |
| DB wrote: |
| ........so that when I meet other people who are involved in the sport (resort workers, guides etc) they stop saying things like "have you seen that snowheads forum? Some people don't half post some cr@p on there, it's obvious some don't have a clue what they are talking about". |
So they do say that now? |
To be fair other ski forums normally fair much worse but yes I've heard a few bad comments about snowheads (along with a lot of good comments).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Sure. You can't believe everything you read in the papers, or believe everything you see or hear on the radio or TV. The internet (and obviously snowHeads is no exception to the rule) is a product of truth-tellers, liars, trolls, fantasists, and people who think what they're writing is accurate (i.e. they're acting in good faith).
If anyone's dissing snowHeads they clearly have no idea of the overwhelming truth and honesty of this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| If anyone's dissing snowHeads they clearly have no idea of the overwhelming truth and honesty of this forum. |
They are not dissing Snowheads, more some of the advice that is presented here by certain posters sometimes. e.g. There was a thread some time back which talked about why Ski Guides tended to survive avalanches when their customers didn't. It was inferring Guides didn't look after their customers and it rattled a lot of safety professionals. Off the cuff comments on resorts and skis are one thing but when safety is concerned it's a different matter.
My best skiing advice comes from the people at resorts/mountains, (e.g. they tell me if it is dumping in the afternoon of that day so I can get a day off work the following day to ski it). They tell me which shops will look after me in a particular resort etc. They give an honest view of the snow and visibility there, not an out of date or manipulated report. There doesn't seem to be too many posters who provide this info on Snowheads, and those who do are often contradicted by people who heard something down the pub or are reading from a brochure / ski guide. Virtually anyone of us can pick up a ski guide or newspaper/internet article on skiing, less people are out in ski areas seeing what is actually going on. The danger is that the volume of the article readers drowns out the resort people.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Wed 29-06-05 9:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
The ski shop ? You're a having a little joke with us I think 
