Time for public flogging of resorts that misrepresent the truth

[thetrailboss]

Gee trailboss, your defensive position seems like that from someone with a financial or employment stake at Pat's.

:lol: Yeah, I wish! I have had a good experience as a customer there...

And you again illustrate how you selectively read things...because I actually discussed Loon as well :wink:

You have singled out Pats and missed the original intent of the thread, which was to collect other examples from other resorts.

From what I recall, you are "publicly flogging" places you think are misleading people....as set by your standards...I visited the "offender's" websites and read their pages...and I came away with a different perspective.

Policing the web sites includes the visit each and every resort web site and write letters, then correspond with each. Time wasted is much more than 20 seconds.

Not sure where you are going here...my original point was that instead of publicly shaming the places that you did, if you were actually concerned, did you consider contacting them about that concern?

People have short attention spans and read the headlines. Prudent people will read down to the level of detail of course. I never missed the weather report, I saw the convenience link. However, contrast that to, say a Stowe report, which right up front, before the weather link, integrates the conditions

Couple points. One, I think you are splitting hairs here...the information was on both Loon and Pats Peak's sites. You seem to focus only on a select portion of the reports without looking at the whole picture. The info was up front and visible. Second, I think that saying that folks have short attention spans really does not accurately reflect the people here at AZ. I think that most folks here really take the time to check things out...and we have people here who ski the conditions and report what they find. I don't think that AZer's are going to be "duped."

Changing the subject to "who is going skiing this weekend" is avoiding the issue.

I think that changing the subject is appropriate because I simply don't see this as a big deal at all....and I don't think that this issue is going to gain much traction with AZer's. It just is a negative thread and sets a bad vibe IMHO.

 

[billski]

You are not upset about this weather? What's wrong with you?:blink: ;-)

I'm still on a pretty big high from last week's skiing. Dreamy, delusions, etc. The rain hasn't sunk in the skull yet.

 

[hiroto]

Rather than just straight out bashing, do you mind elaborating? What are the problems? Have you contacted the resorts directly with your concerns?

I just sent mail to Pats Peak expressing my wishes. I love Pats Peak but I think there is room for improvement in their snow report. I like to ski this Sunday and it will likely to be in Southen NH. After this rain, I'll be quite concerned with the condition. But when Sunday morning comes and I take look at snow reports from Gunstock and Pats, I have a much more warm fuzzy feel toward Gunstock to get straight answer than Pats. I'm not bashing them. I just want to get warm fuzzy feel from their snow report too.

 

[Bumpsis]

Rather than just straight out bashing, do you mind elaborating? What are the problems? Have you contacted the resorts directly with your concerns?

And I am going to defend Pats Peak. In my two seasons as a passholder, I was very, very satisfied with their level of service. They are a great bunch and their snow reporting was always good. They are very customer oriented.

Again, just saying "this place sucks" doesn't help us have a constructive discussion....

First of all, I really don't think that billski's post amounts to bashing. He's highlighting a problem that's so common that we as skiers/rides have become numb. But the ugly fact that is that majority of ski areas in their reports stretch the truth and have developed more euphemisms for their conditions than real estate sales agents.
Some of the stuff in the ski reports is just plain crap. If they told the truth, a lot of people wouldn't show up.
Example: if the so called "packed powder" was really called for what it is, a variation of ice slick of various harndess and shades of blue or "frozen granular" (loose ice chunks of various size and diameter), a lot of people will have second thoughts about coming up and paying big money for lift txs.

Then, there is another fact that what we actually experience on the mountain is highly subjective.
I was at Sugarloaf a couple of days after the mountain got rain soaked and then froze up during the MA school vacation week. To me, the conditions were absolut crap and certainly not worth the $ 70+ what I paid to ski that day. Yet, somebody else on this board reported that they did not mind the ice because they have eto turn less often. Go figure...

As far as my judgement goes, I just know that a lot of ski areas are just not that truthfull about their conditins and most of the time the conditions are worse than what's reported. I watch the weather rather closely and take ALL reports, even the trip reports posted here with a grain of salt. Many times what someone experienced in the woods and off piste does not reflect what's on the trails.

trailboss's remarks also need to keept in perspective. I can see that he and other mods would be on the side of the industry, since this site gets advert $$$. So much for objectivity on this subject form their side.

 

[thetrailboss]

trailboss's remarks also need to keept in perspective. I can see that he and other mods would be on the side of the industry, since this site gets advert $$$. So much for objectivity on this subject form their side.

I take major issue with this comment. I made it clear above that my relationship with Pats Peak was as a passholder for two seasons. I was very impressed with how they treated me as a paying customer. In the interest of complete disclosure, Pats Peak staff do visit our site very often and have posted here. They also are a host for a group of folks from the board who have a race team there. Those members pay the registration fees and represent the board. And in 2005 I received one lift ticket from Pat's for being a part of a focus group. Pat is a paying advertiser on this site, but I reap no benefits from that arrangement. There is nothing more. I am not an agent for them. Greg is the owner of this site and not me. There certainly is no conflict of interest here.

Snow reporting is something that is tough to assess and I agree that reports need to be taken with a grain of salt. But I stand by my assessment that the reports cited here as being misleading are nothing out of the ordinary when looking at all the information that is presented by Loon and Pats Peak.

 

[hammer]

There's marketing spin (accentuate the positive) and there's misinformation (lies about conditions)...I would say that what Pats Peak puts on their main web page is marketing spin but it's definitely not misinformation.

 

[hammer]

I just sent mail to Pat's Peak expressing my wishes. I love Pat's Peak but I think there is room for improvement in their snow report. I like to ski this Sunday and it will likely to be in Southen NH. After this rain, I'll be quite concerned with the condition. But when Sunday morning comes and I take look at snow reports from Gunstock and Pat's, I have a much more warm fuzzy feel toward Gunstock to get straight answer than Pat's. I'm not bashing them. I just want to get warm fuzzy feel from their snow report too.

You might want to bring this up when we have the AZ challenge in the off season...

BTW, go to Gunstock this weekend...will just make the lift lines at Pats Peak shorter for me and my family. ;-);-)

 

[thetrailboss]

There's marketing spin (accentuate the positive) and there's misinformation (lies about conditions)...I would say that what Pats Peak puts on their main web page is marketing spin but it's definitely not misinformation.

Agreed.

 

[Vortex]

I don't think Pats pays for any adverts here. alot of statements that seem out of line.

Pats did do a nice discount deal with us in the past and helped us get a race team going. I asked for it. They did not come to me. They did not get paid nor did I or AZ.

I would consider it a AZ friendly mountain. It that a bad thing?

Heck Az was one of the 1st to get the industry members to post in public at all. Kind of statred with the AZ challenge and has developed since then.

We don't agree at all Bumpis. Don't we want involvement from multiple sides.
Manufactures... ski resorts, Ski shops, Boarders and skiers.

Debate the report. Attack the startegy or agenda. Your not getting it. IMO

edit. I read 2kness post. My points are related to the last paragraph only. debate is fine.

 

[2knees]

First of all, I really don't think that billski's post amounts to bashing. He's highlighting a problem that's so common that we as skiers/rides have become numb. But the ugly fact that is that majority of ski areas in their reports stretch the truth and have developed more euphemisms for their conditions than real estate sales agents.
Some of the stuff in the ski reports is just plain crap. If they told the truth, a lot of people wouldn't show up.
Example: if the so called "packed powder" was really called for what it is, a variation of ice slick of various harndess and shades of blue or "frozen granular" (loose ice chunks of various size and diameter), a lot of people will have second thoughts about coming up and paying big money for lift txs.

Then, there is another fact that what we actually experience on the mountain is highly subjective.
I was at Sugarloaf a couple of days after the mountain got rain soaked and then froze up during the MA school vacation week. To me, the conditions were absolut crap and certainly not worth the $ 70+ what I paid to ski that day. Yet, somebody else on this board reported that they did not mind the ice because they have eto turn less often. Go figure...

As far as my judgement goes, I just know that a lot of ski areas are just not that truthfull about their conditins and most of the time the conditions are worse than what's reported. I watch the weather rather closely and take ALL reports, even the trip reports posted here with a grain of salt. Many times what someone experienced in the woods and off piste does not reflect what's on the trails.

trailboss's remarks also need to keept in perspective. I can see that he and other mods would be on the side of the industry, since this site gets advert $$$. So much for objectivity on this subject form their side.

This is an excellent post bumpsis, with the last paragraph being the exception.

Look, I consider myself a pretty good friend of Gregs so take this with that in mind. I dont see him out pushing the positive all the time. he usually just says nothing in cases like this but he is a skier first and foremost and a proprietor of this board a distant second. Look at his reports from sugarbush this week. He isnt out there saying its the best conditions ever or excluding the fact that they have gotten rain, sleet warmth etc. Its a fine line he walks and one i'm glad i dont have to do.

That being said, i think you hit the nail on the head with your observations. although i do put more stock in trip reports than you, but thats a personal thing.

 

[hiroto]

But I stand by my assessment that the reports cited here as being misleading are nothing out of the ordinary when looking at all the information that is presented by Loon and Pats Peak.

But I don't think you would claim that their reports are as good as MRG or Gunstock, do you?

While I sent comment to Pats Peak, I also send a mail to Gunstock thanking them for their great snow report.

 

[Bumpsis]

I take major issue with this comment. I made it clear above that my relationship with Pats Peak was as a passholder for two seasons. I was very impressed with how they treated me. There is nothing more. Greg is the owner of this site and not me. There certainly is no conflict of interest here.

Snow reporting is something that is tough to assess and I agree that reports need to be taken with a grain of salt. But I stand by my assessment that the reports cited here as being misleading are nothing out of the ordinary when looking at all the information that is presented by Loon and Pats Peak.

OK, noted. All I'm really saying is that I don't expect the moderators to have a neutral position on the subject and I'm glad we can actually have an honest exchange on this. If you say that you're not automatically on the industry side bacuse of your function here and other connections - that's cool.

I have no experience with Pats but as far as Loon is concerned, they may as well not bother posting their report. I just watch the weather and base my judgements from that. I tend to go to areas that have a better track of more truthful reports. Thus, billski's original post was right on - we ought to share our opinions as to which mountain is consistantly more honest about their snow reports.

 

[thetrailboss]

OK, noted. All I'm really saying is that I don't expect the moderators to have a neutral position on the subject and I'm glad we can actually have an honest exchange on this. If you say that you're not automatically on the industry side bacuse of your function here and other connections - that's cool.

My comments here are my own. Enforcement of the board rules is when I am neutral and if I can't be, another mod handles it.

But I don't think you would claim that their reports are as good as MRG or Gunstock, do you?

No, they are not as good. MRG has always had a good report. I have not seen Gunstock's. But are they misleading or "misrepresenting the truth?" No. I heard these complaints and visited the sites to look at what the problems were. I looked at all the information and saw nothing dishonest at all....

 

[Vortex]

OK, noted. All I'm really saying is that I don't expect the moderators to have a neutral position on the subject and I'm glad we can actually have an honest exchange on this. If you say that you're not automatically on the industry side bacuse of your function here and other connections - that's cool.

I have no experience with Pats but as far as Loon is concerned, they may as well not bother posting their report. I just watch the weather and base my judgements from that. I tend to go to areas that have a better track of more truthful reports. Thus, billski's original post was right on - we ought to share our opinions as to which mountain is consistantly more honest about their snow reports.

nice response.

 

[andyzee]

Burke

 

[tcharron]

I don't believe this thread is meant to bash a ski area for the situation *right now*, but the overall industry and their likelyhood to 'spin' or simply not say. A better example of this is twards the BEGINING or END of a season when they're all rushing to have as many trails open as possible, and 'exagerating'. Another good example is when the mountain is sheer ice, and they simply say 'the snow is a nice hardpack'.

 

[Phlogiston]

We all know that there's a lot of ice on the mountains in the Northeast during the course of a ski season.
If a ski area makes no mention of 'ice' or 'icy' in their reports even once during the entire season, they're being dishonest.
I understand that they all do it; that doesn't make it right, that makes them all dishonest.

 

[o3jeff]

Isn't this all just form of marketing and I am sure we can find a way to have this conversation about most any industry. After all they are in a business that only operates part of the year and need to cover their cost quickly.

Most of the time I only check a ski ares web site to see if they are open since I plan on going out to do something I enjoy and living in the Northeast we all know a lot of time conditions ar far from great and that is just part of this sport. Common sense and the local weather will give you a good idea of what the conditions are going to be without looking at the reports.

 

[BLESS]

the first problem here is checking a mtns snow report at all. I just cannot stand "the spin".

I look here when I'm looking for weather/snow conditions.

 

[Joshua B]

Mad River Glen is honest and will even report rain. Not many places report rain.