Time logged

[DSunwall]

I now see a "sort by time logged". I can see that used if you are logging with a smartphone from the summit. If there is no cell coverage can you change the time logged? Maybe "summit time" would work. just speculating here, I'm not sure of the reason you have added this.

[John Kirk]

The reason for the sort is, with the default alphabetical/day sort you have to use your memory and scan through all the updates to see if there is something you didn't see since the last time you looked. If you can remember the time you looked last, using the 'time logged' sort, it's a lot more simple to see all the peaks added since the last time you looked so you'd know what you didn't see before. For this reason, time logged should not be editable.

The time logged could have some benefit (potentially to SAR, kind of like a ping from a SPOT) that cues people in to the last summit location and time, although most SAR instances involve people doing only one peak rendering the peak location superfluous.

[BrianR]

1) What happens when an experienced peakbagger new to the site sits down and logs all 300 (or whatever) of their peaks one evening?

2) Will this information be posted anywhere but the 300 most recent page?

3) If a person doesn't include a date for their peak, does it still show up in the 300 most recently logged list?

4) There would seem to be many reasons why people might want the 300 most recent page to "miss" some of their ascents. (One of which could be related to Point 3)

[John Kirk]

1) What happens when an experienced peakbagger new to the site sits down and logs all 300 (or whatever) of their peaks one evening?

It's only including ascents where date of ascent is within the last 60 days

2) Will this information be posted anywhere but the 300 most recent page?

No plans as of now

3) If a person doesn't include a date for their peak, does it still show up in the 300 most recently logged list?

No, based on the requirements explained in 1) above

4) There would seem to be many reasons why people might want the 300 most recent page to "miss" some of their ascents. (One of which could be related to Point 3)

Let me know if there is a legitimate concern not covered by the current scope of included ascents.

[BrianR]

Thanks, sounds good.