Which Resorts Should be Included in New Condorcet Poll?

[4aprice]

It ranks there because of its revenue. .

If you went by revenue, or "skier visits" that list would look a whole lot dfferent. We are all in different situations. While the Eastern Townships may be great for some and I'm sure are a good time, I have never and probably will never go. It doesn't make sense for my situtation. I'll drive to Jay or Littleton NH (for more eastern NE) but anything beyond that and its quicker and CHEAPER for ME to get on a plane and go to Utah.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[oakapple]

I would suggest a different approach, which I suspect skiersleft isn't open to, but I'll put it out there anyway.

Magazine polls don't suck, as suggested earlier. However, they do reflect the rating criteria of the magazine's editors, which may not be your criteria, or mine. Often, the magazine doesn't make clear precisely what factors were weighed, or how. The resulting list is usually a hybrid, reflecting an unspecified weighting of unstated criteria, and you just don't know how they arrived at it.

If you just let people rate resorts from 1-50, you'll have the same problem: everyone is weighing the resorts according to what they care about. As skiersleft noted, Mad River Glen is terrific for what it's good at, but it completely lacks some other amenities. The right way is to rate ski areas along multiple axes. That way, the criteria would be explicitly separate, and readers could ignore those they don't care about.

Another option would be to state explicitly: the ratings are for terrain only, and ignore such factors as hotels, après, lodges, location, ski school, or whatever factors might otherwise skew the results.

 

[x10003q]

It ranks there because of its revenue. It serves a very large population area that either uses it for night skiing on weekdays, or can't bear to make a 7-10 hour drive to VT from Ohio so they spend the weekend 4-5 hours away at HV. There doesn't have to be any hills with 1000-2000 ft of vert to get people addicted, and when they're addicted they're not going to blow their budget on one single ski trip to the Northeast or even out West for that matter. There are a LOT of people that ski HV, but a LOT of those people would rank nearly any larger hill in the northeast as better. HV is just a necessity to the geography and demographics way way way out here for anyone that likes to ski daily, weekly, or monthly. Same goes for Bristol, Greek Peak, Titus, Labrador, Toggenburg, Kissing Bridge, Brantling, Swain, Peek & Peak, etc. etc. west of the 'Dacks.

All correct. HV should not be on the list despite the Ski/Skiing appearences. I live in North Jersey. HV is around 6.5 hours from me. I will never even consider HV because if I want to drive 6.5 hours I can get to the Catskills, Gore, Whiteface, all of VT and NH and maybe even Sunday River. There is no reason to drive all that distance to yoyo 500-700 vertical feet. I can stay in NJ or ski the Poconos and be home for dinner if I want to yoyo smaller vertical.

I happen to ski mostly Gore/WF. Gore has never been in the top 20 of the Ski/Skiing East list. Gore has over 400 acres of skiing plus glades vs 280 acres at HV. Other than beginner lifts, all other Gore lifts serve more vertical than any lift at HV. If Gore existed within 20 miles of HV it would rank in the top 5 in the Ski/Skiing survey based on how HV is ranked (also Seven Springs in PA).

 

[Ski the Moguls]

It ranks there because of its revenue. It serves a very large population area that either uses it for night skiing on weekdays, or can't bear to make a 7-10 hour drive to VT from Ohio so they spend the weekend 4-5 hours away at HV. There doesn't have to be any hills with 1000-2000 ft of vert to get people addicted, and when they're addicted they're not going to blow their budget on one single ski trip to the Northeast or even out West for that matter. There are a LOT of people that ski HV, but a LOT of those people would rank nearly any larger hill in the northeast as better. HV is just a necessity to the geography and demographics way way way out here for anyone that likes to ski daily, weekly, or monthly. Same goes for Bristol, Greek Peak, Titus, Labrador, Toggenburg, Kissing Bridge, Brantling, Swain, Peek & Peak, etc. etc. west of the 'Dacks.

Explaining why it has high revenue is not the same as explaining a high ranking in a reader poll. I know Butternut blasts me with e-mails every year to vote them "best area under 1000' vertical feet" (or something like that) in some smaller ski magazine. Basically cheating if the other mountains are not asking their fans to do the same thing. Does Holiday Valley ask its skiers to vote in Ski magazines poll each year? All I know is that something is skewing the results, because, as you said, "a LOT of [HV] people would rank nearly any larger hill in the northeast as better [than HV]."

 

[Nick]

I would suggest a different approach, which I suspect skiersleft isn't open to, but I'll put it out there anyway.

Magazine polls don't suck, as suggested earlier. However, they do reflect the rating criteria of the magazine's editors, which may not be your criteria, or mine. Often, the magazine doesn't make clear precisely what factors were weighed, or how. The resulting list is usually a hybrid, reflecting an unspecified weighting of unstated criteria, and you just don't know how they arrived at it.

If you just let people rate resorts from 1-50, you'll have the same problem: everyone is weighing the resorts according to what they care about. As skiersleft noted, Mad River Glen is terrific for what it's good at, but it completely lacks some other amenities. The right way is to rate ski areas along multiple axes. That way, the criteria would be explicitly separate, and readers could ignore those they don't care about.

Another option would be to state explicitly: the ratings are for terrain only, and ignore such factors as hotels, après, lodges, location, ski school, or whatever factors might otherwise skew the results.

Yeah, I have to agree. Something like a sortable list then is the result.

Best at:

• Beginner slopes
• Intermediate slopes
• Expert slopes
• Glades
• Bumps
• Grooming
• Snowmaking
• Weather conditions
• Value
• Dining at lodge
• Apres ski
• Nightlife
• Room availability
• Vertical drop
• Number of lifts and capacity
• Skier volume
• Ski shop review
• Distance / drive
• Family friendliness
• Terrain for ski vs. snowboard
• Access to off-piste
• can you skin it

etc.... the factors are neverending.

 

[riverc0il]

skiersleft has received a lot of great feedback. But I think he is on the right track with the top 50. Ideally, there would be different polls for different things. It seems like skiersleft is doing this for fun so let's see what happens with his top 50. I like that if you haven't skied it, you can leave the rating at 50 and it essentially won't count as a baseless vote. I think that should be stressed in the poll.

 

[billski]

What's your suggestion? Think we should eliminate NY resorts, add NY resorts? Give me a specific suggestion and we'll do it.

As to why I picked Holiday Valley, because it's a resort destination for some. Although vertically challenged, it's horizontally fine and Elicotville has a reputation of being a cool ski town.

Several here have argued it's not really Northeast. I have no problem with dropping it from the list. Do you also think it should be dropped? What others would you drop/add?

Sorry, I was too busy getting some of that for-pay work done :-x
I would drop HV. What I see here is a proximity-based list. From Eastern NY eastwards. Now that's where the bulk of the population will be.

What geographic area are you trying to target? What geo area do you expect people to come from? I understand the HV destination thing, but are the people from Ohio or Indiana, where pickin's are slim? That might explain the revenue.

Not dissin you, just playing devils advocate for the criticisms you will eventually get.

I wonder if boarders would respond differently than skiers. And I don't mean MRG. Suppose an area doesn't have a half pipe or a park. Does it matter?

Good job nonetheless.

 

[Nick]

Any suggestions as to the resorts on the list, Nick? Was wondering where you were at while the list was being compiled.

Nope, looks pretty good to me, although I haven't been staring at it all weekend :lol:

 

[skiersleft]

For their "worth", I definitely would add Wachusett, and probably if I'd ever get to it...Burke. Those smaller mountains with enough pitch in places...one can develop a good amount of the skills needed.

Thanks. Both Wachusett and Burke were added to the list yesterday.

 

[skiersleft]

skiersleft has received a lot of great feedback. But I think he is on the right track with the top 50. Ideally, there would be different polls for different things. It seems like skiersleft is doing this for fun so let's see what happens with his top 50. I like that if you haven't skied it, you can leave the rating at 50 and it essentially won't count as a baseless vote. I think that should be stressed in the poll.

Thanks, Rivercoil. The feedback has been awesome and I'm feeling good about the list after incorporating all of the great suggestions.

I agree that ideally there could be different polls for different things, but as Nick points out, the relevant criteria would be never ending. I assume that most of us here have an intuitive feel for what makes a ski area good and that terrain is a big part of it. There are probably some other intangibles and I trust that we will factor them in as we see fit. Yes, this is just for fun so I'm not too concerned. Despite of this, I still think this list will probably be better than the one put out by Ski and Snow East. Why? Probably because of the ranking feature of the poll and, frankly, because of those who will be taking the survey!

And Rivercoil is right. It's important to stress that resorts are not penalized if you rank them 50.

But rank as many as you can. I, for example, will rank Jay ahead of, say, Wachusett although I haven't been to either. Why? Because from mountain stats, reputation, trip reports, etc., it's pretty obvious to me that I would prefer Jay over Wachusett.

Final list coming out in several hours and polling to begin early tonight.

 

[riverc0il]

But rank as many as you can. I, for example, will rank Jay ahead of, say, Wachusett although I haven't been to either. Why? Because from mountain stats, reputation, trip reports, etc., it's pretty obvious to me that I would prefer Jay over Wachusett.

Devil's advocate: While it seems like a no brainer to rank Jay above Wachusett, what if you haven't even been to half of the "major" destinations on the list? You then have to rank 25 ski areas you've never been to against each other. While Wachusett vs Jay might be a no brainer, what if someone had never been to Jay, Smuggs, MRG, Bush, Killington, Pico, Sutton, Owl's Head, Orford, Magic, Cannon, and WIldcat? They then have to rate them against each other based solely on other people's impressions, stats, and hearsay. You could have some major swings not based on actual impressions but on something entirely different. It then turns your poll into a judgment based on what other people say or think rather than your actual experiences... in which case it is little better than the magazine polls, IMO.

:beer:

 

[skiersleft]

Devil's advocate: While it seems like a no brainer to rank Jay above Wachusett, what if you haven't even been to half of the "major" destinations on the list? You then have to rank 25 ski areas you've never been to against each other. While Wachusett vs Jay might be a no brainer, what if someone had never been to Jay, Smuggs, MRG, Bush, Killington, Pico, Sutton, Owl's Head, Orford, Magic, Cannon, and WIldcat? They then have to rate them against each other based solely on other people's impressions, stats, and hearsay. You could have some major swings not based on actual impressions but on something entirely different. It then turns your poll into a judgment based on what other people say or think rather than your actual experiences... in which case it is little better than the magazine polls, IMO.

:beer:

I hear you. And it is a risk. The reason why I insist on ranking good ski areas that you haven't been to is that part of what I believe skews results in magazine polls is precisely that people vote for the resorts they frequent as opposed to the ones they think are best.

So, for example,more people vote for Holiday Valley than for Gore because more people go to Holiday Valley than to Gore. However, people who read about ski areas would feel confident that they should rank Gore ahead of Holiday Valley, even if they have been to Holiday Valley but never to Gore. That's what I would do. And that's why I would rank Jay ahead of HV although I haven't been to either. There is value to this opinion even if you haven't been to. I think that the fact that HV ranks so high is precisely do to the fact that people rank it because they go there as opposed to because they think it's one of the top areas in the east.

So, what if we put it this way.

"Only rank those areas that you have visited, unless you strongly believe that one area is clearly better than another, in which case feel free to rank that area ahead of the other."

 

[Ski the Moguls]

... It's important to stress that resorts are not penalized if you rank them 50...

So, if I have 20 resorts I can rank, I put them in spots 1 through 20. The other 30 that I do not know enough about I rank as "50"? And where does the resort I really do not like go - "20" or "50" in my example?

 

[skiersleft]

So, if I have 20 resorts I can rank, I put them in spots 1 through 20. The other 30 that I do not know enough about I rank as "50"? And where does the resort I really do not like go - "20" or "50" in my example?

Not sure I understand your question. Can you give me an example?

 

[skiersleft]

Devil's advocate: While it seems like a no brainer to rank Jay above Wachusett, what if you haven't even been to half of the "major" destinations on the list? You then have to rank 25 ski areas you've never been to against each other. While Wachusett vs Jay might be a no brainer, what if someone had never been to Jay, Smuggs, MRG, Bush, Killington, Pico, Sutton, Owl's Head, Orford, Magic, Cannon, and WIldcat? They then have to rate them against each other based solely on other people's impressions, stats, and hearsay. You could have some major swings not based on actual impressions but on something entirely different. It then turns your poll into a judgment based on what other people say or think rather than your actual experiences... in which case it is little better than the magazine polls, IMO.

:beer:

Hey, Rivercoil. Would like to know what you think about my reply to your thoughts before I finalize the list and start the poll.

 

[riverc0il]

Hey, Rivercoil. Would like to know what you think about my reply to your thoughts before I finalize the list and start the poll.

I dig it.

I guess it probably goes both ways... I think a lot of those responders to the Rag polls also go by rep (in addition to picking the favorite they have gone to even if HV is the biggest that they have gone to). Either way, I think you get a more "enthusiast" result from AZ no matter which method you use. Go for it! Looking forward to see what happens.

 

[ALLSKIING]

So, if I have 20 resorts I can rank, I put them in spots 1 through 20. The other 30 that I do not know enough about I rank as "50"? And where does the resort I really do not like go - "20" or "50" in my example?

Not sure I understand your question. Can you give me an example?

I think he is asking what spot does he rank a resort he really does not like. At 50 the same place he would rank a resort he has never skied at?

 

[skiersleft]

I think he is asking what spot does he rank a resort he really does not like. At 50 the same place he would rank a resort he has never skied at?

OK. A resort you don't like goes at the bottom of your ranking. So, if you've only been to 20, you would rank that resort 20th. Only rank 50 those that you have not been to.

 

[skiersleft]

I dig it.

I guess it probably goes both ways... I think a lot of those responders to the Rag polls also go by rep (in addition to picking the favorite they have gone to even if HV is the biggest that they have gone to). Either way, I think you get a more "enthusiast" result from AZ no matter which method you use. Go for it! Looking forward to see what happens.

Alright, cool. I also think it cuts both ways. And I also agree that regardless of the instructions we will probably get a more enthusiast result because we are polling AZ. So, the final instruction will state that:

"Only rank those areas that you have visited, unless you strongly believe that one area is clearly better than another, in which case feel free to rank that area ahead of the other. If you haven't been to the resort and don't feel strongly about it being clearly better than others, please rank the resort "NO OPINION"

It's pretty cool that I was able to find the NO OPINION option. Think that helps with some of the legitimate reservations expressed by some AZoners.

Let the games begin!!

 

[Ski the Moguls]

... It's pretty cool that I was able to find the NO OPINION option. Think that helps with some of the legitimate reservations expressed by some AZoners..

Sorry not to respond, but I have been driving for the last few hours...

ALLSKIING's interpretation of my question was correct.

I understand skiersleft's reply, but am even happier about the NO OPINION option.

Thanks for interpreting my concerns correctly and solving the issue. Is this really an Internet forum because they normally do not work this well.