Mount Snow is bad at math

[ScottySkis]

On their snow report saying they have 21 of 80 trails open and saying they have 36% open is not correct. http://mountsnow.com/snow-report/

 

[Bene288]

Maybe they're going by acreage and not trails?

 

[oakapple]

Yes, that is the reason: Mount Snow counts the percentage open by acres, not trails. They claim that this is more transparent, although I think it's actually more opaque. I were at Mount Snow today, it would feel more like 25% open (20 trails out of 80) than 36%.

And that's without counting tree runs. Several years ago, Mount Snow de-mapped all of their tree runs, so they no longer count against the number of trails open. Their position is that you can ski the trees whenever and wherever you want, if they appear to be skiable. But obviously, the trees aren't available right now, which further reduces the perceived amount of available terrain.

I like Mount Snow, but I think they have a sanctimonious attitude about reporting what's open (which they call "Truth in Snow Reporting") that just leads to confusion.

 

[marcski]

I agree, I don't think reporting by acreage really make sense in the east. It only makes sense if its open bowl skiing.

 

[thetrailboss]

Maybe they're going by acreage and not trails?

Exactly. An acre is an acre. A trail is, well.....

 

[farlep99]

It's stupid & has a simple solution. Report both open acreage and trails. But that's bad for marketing evidently

 

[BenedictGomez]

That's hysterical!

I thought I'd heard all the disingenuous ways mountains inflate their stats and figures, but this is one I've never heard. Cracks me up.


EDIT: They should cut one massively wide trail, blow snow, and say, "Over NINETY PERCENT open. MOST in the EAST!!!!"

 

[KevinF]

The only way that any eastern snow report will be meaningful if everybody does away with the "upper / middle / lower" designations. Sugarloaf really got behind this as they have the "extension", the "upper", the "middle" and the "lower" section of their trails. But hey, it enables the Killington's / Stowe's / Sugarloaf's to claim "30-some trails open", which is a serious stretch.

 

[drjeff]

Exactly. An acre is an acre. A trail is, well.....

Exactly!

If an area has 100 acres of open terrain, well for the average person they can picture what 100 football fields is like size wise (since an acre is basically the size of a football field).

If an area has 30 trails open - depending on how they break them up, then the average person kind of realizes that they'll have 8 to 15 runs open.

An acre is a constant, a "trail" is a variable

 

[drjeff]

It's stupid & has a simple solution. Report both open acreage and trails. But that's bad for marketing evidently

Nope, they do that on their report.

The link below is for today

http://mountsnow.com/snow-report/

Pretty honest assesment, with BOTH acreage open and trail count listed

Mount Snow also a few years ago, did away with much of the upper, middle, lower run designation too, and actually DECREASED their total number of runs listed as a result. If it's a top to bottom run, it's just the trail name not upper, middle, lower just because some intersecting trail crossed at such and such a place

 

[ScottySkis]

Exactly!

If an area has 100 acres of open terrain, well for the average person they can picture what 100 football fields is like size wise (since an acre is basically the size of a football field).

If an area has 30 trails open - depending on how they break them up, then the average person kind of realizes that they'll have 8 to 15 runs open.

An acre is a constant, a "trail" is a variable

Dr Jeff of all the south hills Mountsnow is my favorite, and 98% of what the company that owns your hill I like part of the reason I will go to your hill before I go the others. But 20 of 80 trails should not be put down as 37% that just makes people think they are lying, and I agree MountainSnow reports are some of the most honest I have ever seen.

 

[jaywbigred]

If you don't get it, you don't get it. While none of them are perfect,acreage if by far the most honest metric.

If the acreage open is 35% and the trails open is 25%, it probably means that the resort has its longest trails open. I guess it could mean widest as well, but that is a little silly considering the relative variance of width from trail to trail (fairly slight) vs. the relative variance of length of trail to trail (greater).

Mt. Snow could clear it up a lot simply by reporting both metrics side by side (% open [acreage]; % open [trails]).

 

[Yooper]

Really doesn't matter whether they use trail count or acreage, fact is ONLY 3 trails open top to bottom on main face Cascade, Exibition and Long John

 

[drjeff]

Really doesn't matter whether they use trail count or acreage, fact is ONLY 3 trails open top to bottom on main face Cascade, Exibition and Long John

Don't forget about Ridge

Plus, they've got a couple of more runs that are just awaiting about 24hrs of snowmaking before rope dropping occurs.

Been a frustrating start as the wet bulb temps all too often have been just a degree on the wrongside for them and/or the window that they were going to have temps was so limited (with a warm up or more commonly backside rain event) that they made the call not to make snow for a few hours to then have it melt for way more hours.

They've been hindered by their latitude this season so far for sure

 

[Yooper]

Yes, but I consider Ridge an appendage off Long John that feeds back to Long John near the bottom. And do agree its been frustrating but I believe much better than this time last year, weather is looking up in the near future.

 

[jaytrem]

Here's my theory. I assume some program automatically counts the acres open when a trail is check off as open. Since Exhibition is now a top to bottom trail as soon as they open a piece of it and check it off as open the entire trail gets added into the acreage open. Same deal with Somerset Road, High Traverse, Season Pass, Cooper Junction, Lodge, etc. I could be wrong, but that's my guess. So by reducing the number of trails it has indeed caused Mt. Snow to be become bad at math.

 

[jaywbigred]

Just wanted to point out the caliber of management at Mount Snow...not sure if they were reading this thread, or if one of the guys on here (Vince, Glenn, Dr. Jeff, etc..) who has their ear mentioned it, but starting a few days ago, the snow report includes % open under BOTH metrics, acreage and trails:

http://mountsnow.com/snow-report/

Just one of the many examples of Mt. Snow showing that they "get it." Kudos!

 

[Nick]

Wow, interesting and good catch!

I don't fault them for marketing like this, I don't like it but it's standard practice.

A similar example of adjusting terms to make #'s sound better.

The Kindle e-ink that Amazon released. They showed statistics like this about battery life (paraphrasing):

Battery Life Ipad - 10 hours
Battery Life Android - 8 hours
Battery life Kindle - 10 Weeks*

* based on usage of 2 hours per day

Basically, the real battery life was something like 20 hours. It was only twice (or 3x or something) as good as the next best one, but the way it was presented made it sound like it was 100 fold better.

It's normal practice. That's why a good consumer always reads the fine print

 

[RISkier]

The only way that any eastern snow report will be meaningful if everybody does away with the "upper / middle / lower" designations. Sugarloaf really got behind this as they have the "extension", the "upper", the "middle" and the "lower" section of their trails. But hey, it enables the Killington's / Stowe's / Sugarloaf's to claim "30-some trails open", which is a serious stretch.

For a long time Stowe had the great 48. They kept reporting 48 trails even after opening a new green teaching trail at Spruce. A person who worked at Stowe told me they got into the trail count inflation game cause they were loosing British group bookings to K, which was saying they had over 200 trails at the time. We all know its BS, but it does have an impact on business.