Appalachain Pages vs Thru Hikers Handbook

[corialice81]

I have both and was wondering which would I should go with. Is one more accurate? Pros and cons to both..

Thanks

[SGT Rock]

Personally I think it is just in how you like the information presented. If you have both then look at how the information is layed out. I presonally like the style of the Appalachian Pages and like the more compact book.

[gungho]

I have both as well and like the layout of the Appalachian pages better. That is what my wife Roots is carrying. The applachian pages has the data and the area locations all their together. But, this is just my opinion.

[corialice81]

so, I'm looking through them now... and is it safe to assume that the thoroughness of info is the same in each book?

[SGT Rock]

Well pretty much. The Thru-Hikers Handbook is a lot older and has a lot of data gained over time. The Appalachian Pages started as a whole new program. In order to keep from getting any accusation of plagiarism they started from scratch basically. So there may be an item of information or two every hundred miles or so that the Thru-Hikers Handbook has which AP does not. That said it is not a show stopper. Complaints that once were on the Thru-Hikers Handbook was that some of the data was old and the old writer wasn't updating it as well because he hadn't hiked the trails in years so in essence six of one, half dozen of the other...

Also remember that every guidebook will have some sort of error because things change after publishing or even after the data was collected but before the book went to print. I was just talking to Troll about this a couple of days ago about one of the AP entries. The AP has a website and tries its best to keep it where new data is easy to find so you can check in from time to time during the year for updates. I haven't checked into the Thru-Hikers Handbook lately but I bet Bob is doing something similar.

[Compass]

I really like the way the AP presents the information (profile, Shelter mileage calculations, consistent 28 miles per page).

That being said there is definately less information. Example Cow Camp Shelter in Virginia is 0.6 miles of trail according to THH, AP would have you thinking its right on the trail.

Solo hiking with big days you can take it all in stride. Moveing slower with my kids I take both AP for quick reference THH for details.

[SGT Rock]

That being said there is definately less information. Example Cow Camp Shelter in Virginia is 0.6 miles of trail according to THH, AP would have you thinking its right on the trail.

Good point. That is one thing I did notice about the AP is it doesn't seem to ever mention if the shelters are off the trail and if so - by how much.

[Rain Man]

I have both and was wondering which would I should go with.

So many of these questions are matters of personal preference, in which "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. We can't tell you which you should go with.

I have both, plus others. I like AP because it is laid out South-to-North, which is the only reasonable lay-out. It has the profile on each page. And they've done a wonderful job of matching left-hand page data with right-hand page trail points/mileage. Common sense, but this is the only one that consistently does that for some reason.

I also love that the pages are perforated for easy tear-out. NICE feature.

You only asked about these two books, but I'll add that you should go with a map and compass too. Since you are asking for opinions, that is.
:D
Rain:sunMan

.

[corialice81]

I was originally going to go with the handbook but then kirby mentioned the AP, which i had not heard of. So, I ordered one and when it arrived I realized I like the profile map and the perforated pages, and the fact that I didn't have to flip back and forth through the book for info on places (like I have to do in the handbook). I did notice with the AP book, however, that there looked to be less info. So, that got me to thinking...personally I would like to have a book with the layout designed like the AP but contained all the info in the handbook. Since a book such as that doesn't exist and at this point I really want to take both, I thought I'd reach out to the WB community and see what you guys had to say. I was hoping that your feedback could help me decide since I'm basically on the fence right now.

[10-K]

I was originally going to go with the handbook but then kirby mentioned the AP, which i had not heard of. So, I ordered one and when it arrived I realized I like the profile map and the perforated pages, and the fact that I didn't have to flip back and forth through the book for info on places (like I have to do in the handbook). I did notice with the AP book, however, that there looked to be less info. So, that got me to thinking...personally I would like to have a book with the layout designed like the AP but contained all the info in the handbook. Since a book such as that doesn't exist and at this point I really want to take both, I thought I'd reach out to the WB community and see what you guys had to say. I was hoping that your feedback could help me decide since I'm basically on the fence right now.

I tear pages from both and take it all with me. Best of both worlds.

[attroll]

While reading through the post in this thread I felt I should comment for Awol and myself.

We wrote this book originally when we thought the THH was going to stop being published. We did not want hikers to be out thru hiking or section hiking without a good handbook. The THH was the best one out at the time and with the fear of it going away we decided we should do something. After we had the book almost done we found out that someone else had purchased the copyrights to the THH. With all the work we had done we decided to go ahead and publish it.

Appalachian Pages was put together in a very short period of time and from scratch. I think we wrote and created the book in about three months. We have not had all the years experience behind us for collecting data like the other books on the market have had. There are things that were left out and that we did not know about. There are probably mistakes also and we are correcting those as we find them. Please check out update pages on our web site. It was our first year and I hope people realize we are only human.

Like I said we wrote and put the book together in about three months. There is some information that it may be lacking but it has enough good information to get all thru hiking from Springer to Katahdin or from Katahdin to Springer. You can bet that next years book will have more information since we have more time to put it together.

For those of you that are reading this thread and like our book and have information you would like added then please go to our web site and post it there and let us know. If we do not know about some of the things you would like added then we can not add them.

www.appalachianpages.com (http://www.appalachianpages.com)

[Sly]

Keep up the good work Troll. Book looks great.

[corialice81]

Wow, I had no idea the history/story behind the AP. Yeah, when I found out about THH shutting down, I immediately bought a 2007 edition and then found out later that there would be a 2008 after all. I really do love the layout of the AP. I think it is more user friendly.

[Jack Tarlin]

The Handbook and the Companion are about equally accurate; the Companion has the benefit of having multiple editors, nearly all of whom are intimately familiar with the section they are writing about.

In terms if town descriptions and maps, the Handbook is probably superior; this is certainly the case with maps.

In terms of accuracy, fact-checking, completeness of information, and even user friendliness, their is no question in my mind that the Companion, or more likley, the Thru Hikers Handbook, is the best choice for the 2008 hiker.

[Time To Fly 97]

The AP is new to me. Checked out the website and love the format. Great work!!

Happy hiking!

TTF

[Montego]

Bought the Southbound Edition of the AP. Happy with it.

[Awol2003]

I like AP because it is laid out South-to-North, which is the only reasonable lay-out. It has the profile on each page. And they've done a wonderful job of matching left-hand page data with right-hand page trail points/mileage. Common sense, but this is the only one that consistently does that for some reason.
.

Glad you like it Rain Man!...but many SOBOs would disagree that S>N is the only reasonable lay-out. App Pages is available South-to-North OR North-to-South.

[joel137]

Good point. That is one thing I did notice about the AP is it doesn't seem to ever mention if the shelters are off the trail and if so - by how much.

They mention it sometimes, e.g. Siler Bald shelter is stated accurately as being 0.5 off the trail.

I think there is a way to go with AP, I just got a copy and there seem to a fair amount if little typos; the should be corrected as it goes along, and as they perhaps use suggestions that people make. In a couple of years a bet it will be better.

[Jack Tarlin]

Or, if one doesn't have the leisure or inclination to wait a few years for more accurate information, one could always get a better edited and better fact-checked guidebook.

Or, I guess you cold wait a couple of years. :rolleyes:

[ofthearth]

Or, if one doesn't have the leisure or inclination to wait a few years for more accurate information, one could always get a better edited and better fact-checked guidebook.

Or, I guess you cold wait a couple of years. :rolleyes:

Or.........:banana


I tear pages from both and take it all with me. Best of both worlds.

[Skyline]

There are pro's and con's about all four books:

Thru-Hikers Companion
Thru-Hikers Handbook
Appalachian Pages
AT Data Book

The Companion, published by ALDHA in conjunction with ATC, has the most on-the-ground fact-checkers writing and updating each section. Like Jack said, these hikers and local support people know their sections intimately. It stands to reason that it, therefore, has the best chance to present the most accurate info when the various writers devote sufficient time to their sections. It's not perfect, but its system of fact-gathering is probably the best. Still, the format in which this info is presented, and the size of the pages, infuriates some folks.

The Handbook, privately published, offers better maps, and the info has gotten a little fresher with the recent change in publishers. Still, it was put together by the new publisher on a tight deadline and so some things were missed. It is basically two books in one: A bare-bones chart from south to north similar to the Data Book, and a more detailed section of off-trail info (thus necessitating flipping back and forth). I'm thinking the completeness and accuracy of info will improve with the next issue.

The AT Pages, privately published, is the new kid on the block. The publishers started from scratch on a tight deadline, and have compiled a useful amount of information. Like the Handbook, I would expect the next issue to include what may have been overlooked in haste to get the first issue out, to clean up the typos, to improve the maps. But the AT Pages, IMHO, is on the right track with the best format. On the left page you'll find detailed descriptions, and directly opposite it you'll find the basic chart-style listing for what's on the left. They don't sync up perfectly, but they're close. Of particular interest and value is the superimposed trail profile on each right page, and the fact that pages are perforated for easy removal. I haven't seen it, but I've heard that AT Pages also comes in a SOBO edition, which would be a good thing.

The Data Book, published by ATC, is the old kid on the block. It is the source for bare-bones info. It's compact, lightweight, and many hikers have used only it to get to Katahdin. IMHO it misses a lot of important stuff (especially water sources), but if you're not looking to be bombarded with too much data, this will work fine. It is arranged from north to south, which bothers some NOBO hikers.

[Mrs Baggins]

Good point. That is one thing I did notice about the AP is it doesn't seem to ever mention if the shelters are off the trail and if so - by how much.


I used the AP for a small section - Wayah Bald to Stecoah Gap. What I noticed was that the shelters are not described in much detail i.e. how many tent spaces, how far off the trail, etc. Springs are described for shelters, but having just that little "drip" symbol for other water areas is pretty lame. There were several places along the way that showed water in the AP but we couldn't find the water or we'd find that it was so far off the trail it wasn't worth going for unless we were desperate. The distance off the trail was not indicated. If I hadn't seen the blue blaze way up a tree we'd never have found the water at the campsite between NOC and Sassafras shelter. Other than that - I liked the profiles on the pages.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I believe AP will get better as time goes along. It is their first year out so I'm going to cut them some slack about typos and omissions.

Currently, AP does not contain enough info for me, but then, I enjoy knowing the names of the knobs and gaps I'm crossing -- and I need to know things like the water source is a spring on the other side of an open field. Some like the barebones approach, and if you do, this your book. The overall format of AP is the best of the three IMO - YMMV.

The Handbook is comprehensive and accurate - and overkill for some people. If you like lots of info - this is your book.

The Companion is accurate and falls in between the other two in providing hiking info. It gives a lot of info that just isn't needed by hikers - history of area and info about maintainers, etc.

[max patch]

If you want a lot of info -- as well as how to access each section of the AT by road -- then the state guidebooks are the way to go.

[attroll]

Thank you all for your feedback on Appalachian Pages. As Skyline stated, we are the new kid on the block. Our book was done in a tight deadline with some help. We did not have a wide variety of help like the other publications had. We were not fortunate enough to have a trail maintainer for each section of the trail or people that lived near each section of the trail to help us with the book. We relied on past thru hikers and information given to us by the ATC and the calling around to each trail town ourselves or the information from the helpers that did help us.

We ask that if you find any information that is incorrect to please go over to www.appalachianpages.com (http://www.appalachianpages.com/) and let us know there. If the information does not get passed along to us then we can not make the appropriate additions or changes for next year’s addition to help future hikers on the AT. In the same respects please offer any suggestions or changes you would like to see in the book.

If you do not want to go to our www.appalachianpages.com (http://www.appalachianpages.com/) web site then could you please send me an email or private message with this information so I can put it down for correction or addition to next years addition of our book.

If you would like to help us with a section of the trail or a trail town for our book next year please contact me and let me know. There is always room for more help. The more participation the better the book will be.

[Alligator]

Folks continue to talk about how accurate the guides are without any objective measure of accuracy. Some sort of real, unbiased and fairly determined measure of how factual the guides are.

accurate
adj 1: conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a
standard or performing with total accuracy; "an
accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate";
"accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale" [ant: inaccurate (http://dictionary.die.net/inaccurate)]
2: exact in performance or amount; strictly correct; "a precise
instrument"; "a precise measurement" [syn: exact (http://dictionary.die.net/exact), precise (http://dictionary.die.net/precise)]

It's been rather silly to see claims made on preconceived notions. While having more editors, more collaborators, more this or that might change the accuracy there's really no way to know that for sure without actually measuring the accuracy.

Accuracy can be determined with an objective measuring system, but that appears to be lacking in some of the critics.

[Skyline]

Folks continue to talk about how accurate the guides are without any objective measure of accuracy. Some sort of real, unbiased and fairly determined measure of how factual the guides are.

accurate
adj 1: conforming exactly or almost exactly to fact or to a
standard or performing with total accuracy; "an
accurate reproduction"; "the accounting was accurate";
"accurate measurements"; "an accurate scale" [ant: inaccurate (http://dictionary.die.net/inaccurate)]
2: exact in performance or amount; strictly correct; "a precise
instrument"; "a precise measurement" [syn: exact (http://dictionary.die.net/exact), precise (http://dictionary.die.net/precise)]

It's been rather silly to see claims made on preconceived notions. While having more editors, more collaborators, more this or that might change the accuracy there's really no way to know that for sure without actually measuring the accuracy.

Accuracy can be determined with an objective measuring system, but that appears to be lacking in some of the critics.


Your overall point is well taken. How would you suggest this objective criteria be established? By whom?

I suppose we could all post the misinformation we each perceive is present in each book on WB. But wouldn't it be a more productive use of our time to each go out and actually research a section we are most familiar with, type it up, and send a copy to each publisher for consideration in 2009 editions?

I don't personally have a dog in this "fight." And I hope it's only a friendly "fight." I've contributed info over the years to Wingfoot, and now Bob, for use in the Handbook. I've been a field editor for the Companion, and am on the roster for 2009. I have provided info to AWOL and ATTroll for the first issue of AP and hope to again.

There is no need to take sides (not that you were). There is just a desire to do one's part to make sure future hikers have access to the best info to make their hikes successful and enjoyable—no matter which book they choose to go with. Basically, I send the same updates to each publisher for the area I know best—SNP and beyond. AFAIK no one cares that they don't get it exclusively.

Each puiblisher will format the data they receive in different ways. The format that is most useful to a particular hiker is the one he or she should go with IMHO. But first, each publisher needs the best data there is. Many of us here on WB can help make that happen.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Your overall point is well taken. How would you suggest this objective criteria be established? By whom?

I suppose we could all post the misinformation we each perceive is present in each book on WB. But wouldn't it be a more productive use of our time to each go out and actually research a section we are most familiar with, type it up, and send a copy to each publisher for consideration in 2009 editions?

I don't personally have a dog in this "fight." And I hope it's only a friendly "fight." I've contributed info over the years to Wingfoot, and now Bob, for use in the Handbook. I've been a field editor for the Companion, and am on the roster for 2009. I have provided info to AWOL and ATTroll for the first issue of AP and hope to again.

There is no need to take sides (not that you were). There is just a desire to do one's part to make sure future hikers have access to the best info to make their hikes successful and enjoyable—no matter which book they choose to go with. Basically, I send the same updates to each publisher for the area I know best—SNP and beyond. AFAIK no one cares that they don't get it exclusively.

Each publisher will format the data they receive in different ways. The format that is most useful to a particular hiker is the one he or she should go with IMHO. But first, each publisher needs the best data there is. Many of us here on WB can help make that happen.Best post I've seen on the subject - I've been in touch with authors of both of the private publications about things that caused concern - privately. Each one has it set of strengths and weaknesses - and making them all as strong as possible is the best thing we can do for future hikers (and ourselves.)

[Alligator]

Your overall point is well taken. How would you suggest this objective criteria be established? By whom?Well first, I'm real interested in the methods employed by those who have publicly commented on the comparative accuracy. Maybe their methods are fair and impartial enough? I don't know. Otherwise, the board's open to make suggestions as to what would constitute a fair assessment.


I suppose we could all post the misinformation we each perceive is present in each book on WB. But wouldn't it be a more productive use of our time to each go out and actually research a section we are most familiar with, type it up, and send a copy to each publisher for consideration in 2009 editions?
No, not necessarily. That's a separate argument though for folks who elect to gather information. Anyone acting in that capacity will have to make their own decisions on which to help and why. That's not up to me to decide.


I don't personally have a dog in this "fight." And I hope it's only a friendly "fight." I've contributed info over the years to Wingfoot, and now Bob, for use in the Handbook. I've been a field editor for the Companion, and am on the roster for 2009. I have provided info to AWOL and ATTroll for the first issue of AP and hope to again.I personally don't find it friendly to have people's financial matters affected by vague measures. There's been ongoing pooh-poohing on the accuracy issue, yet I haven't seen anyone provide any fair measure of accuracy while criticizing said accuracy. Qualifying without quantifying.


There is no need to take sides (not that you were). There is just a desire to do one's part to make sure future hikers have access to the best info to make their hikes successful and enjoyable—no matter which book they choose to go with. Basically, I send the same updates to each publisher for the area I know best, SNP and beyond. AFAIK no one cares that they don't get it exclusively.I think they are all appreciative of the information provided by helpful volunteers.

[Skyline]

Regarding data, my comments in the above mini-reviews were based on a singular criteria. Basically, I scoured the section I am most familiar with, and noticed whatever I noticed that was amiss. I then projected that sampling to each overall publication, which may or may not be fair. It's a start.

The comments regarding format were simply opinion, either my own or others I have accrued.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. There is something to recommend each book, and room for improvement in each book.

[Alligator]

Regarding data, my comments in the above mini-reviews were based on a singular criteria. Basically, I scoured the section I am most familiar with, and noticed whatever I noticed that was amiss. I then projected that sampling to each overall publication, which may or may not be fair. It's a start.

The comments regarding format were simply opinion, either my own or others I have accrued.

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. There is something to recommend each book, and room for improvement in each book.You weren't one of the people I had in mind really when I wrote my original post Skyline. You qualified what you were saying there.

However;), in the interest of furthering the discussion, your approach is biased (you chose the sample arbitrarily) and the error measure is vaguely defined.

[Time To Fly 97]

How can I use that blue font for my responses? Tough to argue with that. : )

Happy hiking!

TTF

[Alligator]

How can I use that blue font for my responses? Tough to argue with that. : )

Happy hiking!

TTFThe pulldown menu with the single A immediately above the message area. I thought it would be easier on the eyes.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

You weren't one of the people I had in mind really when I wrote my original post Skyline. You qualified what you were saying there.

However;), in the interest of furthering the discussion, your approach is biased (you chose the sample arbitrarily) and the error measure is vaguely defined.Are you still fussing with me 'Gator? I have half a mind to paint you orange....:p

[Alligator]

Are you still fussing with me 'Gator? I have half a mind to paint you orange....:pNot many people left in this thread making accuracy claims. Put up your methods or quiet down on the issue.

[Christopher Robin]

If you was going S-N would it be best to get a N-S loss page book & revice the pages or just buy the S-N book instead.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Not many people left in this thread making accuracy claims. Put up your methods or quiet down on the issue.I haven't said anything about AP's accuracy in months. :confused:

[Awol2003]

A much earlier post in this thread commented that App Pages "sometimes" lists the distance from the trail to shelters. The book's approach to this information is not at all arbitrary.

Most shelters are close to the AT, though it doesn't seem that way when you are hiking! I think it all depends on how tired you are, or how late it is when you get there.

Our intent is to show the distance from the trail if it is 0.1 miles or more. If so, the shelter name is followed by a notation such as "(0.1E)". I just did a one-pass count through App Pages and found that there are 58 notations like this. IMHO it is preferable NOT to say when the shelter is 50 feet from the trail. If the notation is not present for "close" shelters, then it is immediately obvious when one is a significant walk away.

Cow Camp Shelter is one that we missed. Sorry. I will put it on our update page ASAP.

[Alligator]

I haven't said anything about AP's accuracy in months. :confused:Your first post in this thread commented on the accuracy of the two other guides. I asked for your evaluation method. Twice you ignored that opportunity. And of course you chose not to rate AP as accurate in the same post:-?. Daughter A, "You're beautiful", Daughter B, "You're Beautiful", Daughter C, "You dress bad and you're missing a tooth."

Also now, you're not really cutting anyone any slack below. That like's saying "Honey, I know it's the first year after being pregnant, I'm going to cut you some slack that you are fat."

So one more time FD, what was fair and objective about how you measure accuracy? I don't care which one you are rating. They all deserve a fair shake and you really don't appear to be giving one.


I believe AP will get better as time goes along. It is their first year out so I'm going to cut them some slack about typos and omissions.

Currently, AP does not contain enough info for me, but then, I enjoy knowing the names of the knobs and gaps I'm crossing -- and I need to know things like the water source is a spring on the other side of an open field. Some like the barebones approach, and if you do, this your book. The overall format of AP is the best of the three IMO - YMMV.

The Handbook is comprehensive and accurate - and overkill for some people. If you like lots of info - this is your book.

The Companion is accurate and falls in between the other two in providing hiking info. It gives a lot of info that just isn't needed by hikers - history of area and info about maintainers, etc.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

I know the other two are accurate - I don't know about AP yet so I'm saying nothing - I did not say it is not accurate and have not for some time. I gave the publication highest marks for format and recommended it to those who like streamlined facts.

'Gator, if you want to hash this out with me, let's take it to PM -- keeping this issue out in front of the public really isn't fair to ATTroll and AWOL.

[Alligator]

I know the other two are accurate - I don't know about AP yet so I'm saying nothing - I did not say it is not accurate and have not for some time. I gave the publication highest marks for format and recommended it to those who like streamlined facts.

'Gator, if you want to hash this out with me, let's take it to PM -- keeping this issue out in front of the public really isn't fair to ATTroll and AWOL.What isn't fair is they have biased critiques of their work put out.

Two months ago (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=531595&highlight=appalachian+pages#post531595) you said that in two days you were able to determine the accuracy of all three guidebooks. Suddenly you are not making any statement about AP:-?. I just don't believe you.

Also, "I know they are accurate" isn't good enough. Since you are unable to provide some sort of reasoned explanation as to why, we'll just have to assume you haven't been objective at all. You've had plenty of opportunity to provide your criteria:rolleyes:.

If you were truly concerned, you wouldn't be the one being the unfair critic.

[Jack Tarlin]

The most accurate, detailed 2008 A.T. guidebook is clearly McCaw's 2008 Thru-Hikers Handbook..

It is closely followed by the 2008 Thru-Hiker's Companion.

If Alligator or anyone else wants to dispute this, have at it.

And this has nothing to do with "biased critiques."

I'm on the Trail. I've been hiking for the better part of a month from Springer, with access to the material in all 3 books. If anyone wants to dispute what I just said, have at it.

"Reasoned explanation" and "objectivity?"

Well, it's very simple.

The best two books out there are the Handbook and the Companion. No question about it.

Um, Alligator, when you call someone a "biased critic", what do you mean?

Also, do you have any association with any of these books you're not mentioning? Are YOU a totally unbiased critic?

For example, I'm a contributor and Field Editor of the Companion, I admit it. I think it's a great book. I also think and have no trouble saying that in many ways, the Handbook, at least at present, is a superior book, tho before I left for Georgia, I consulted both. How's that for unbiased?

Alligator......I notice that you're thanked and listed as a contributor to App.Pages.

Yet, YOU call people out as being biased or being unfair critics? :rolleyes:

Um, a little perspective is in order.

[warraghiyagey]

Data Book for folks who find it enough. I do.

[Skyline]

The most accurate, detailed 2008 A.T. guidebook is clearly McCaw's 2008 Thru-Hikers Handbook..

It is closely followed by the 2008 Thru-Hiker's Companion.

If Alligator or anyone else wants to dispute this, have at it.

And this has nothing to do with "biased critiques."

I'm on the Trail. I've been hiking for the better part of a month from Springer, with access to the material in all 3 books. If anyone wants to dispute what I just said, have at it.

"Reasoned explanation" and "objectivity?"

Well, it's very simple.

The best two books out there are the Handbook and the Companion. No question about it.

Um, Alligator, when you call someone a "biased critic", what do you mean?

Also, do you have any association with any of these books you're not mentioning? Are YOU a totally unbiased critic?

For example, I'm a contributor and Field Editor of the Companion, I admit it. I think it's a great book. I also think and have no trouble saying that in many ways, the Handbook, at least at present, is a superior book, tho before I left for Georgia, I consulted both. How's that for unbiased?

Alligator......I notice that you're thanked and listed as a contributor to App.Pages.

Yet, YOU call people out as being biased or being unfair critics? :rolleyes:

Um, a little perspective is in order.



IMHO the competition, and I hope it remains friendly competition, will be a good thing for AT hikers. All of the books will need to keep improving to survive. And the strongest will. Until then, I want to support anyone who's honestly trying to publish a good hiking guide. And that's all of them.

If I was on a limited budget, and could only buy one guide this year, I'm not sure which way I'd go in the end—but I'm leaning toward the Companion, plus maps. YMMV.

In reality whenever I've set off on a long hike I've availed myself of everything out there including the state guides and maps, photocopied what I needed for a section (including profiles from the maps, reduced), and then pasted it all down on 8.5x11 sheets split up into what I guesstimate will be individual hiking days. Then I photocopied my compilation of info that was rooted in several sources. It typically wound up being a single sheet, printed two sides, for each day's hike—including the reduced version of the elevation profile. This way I have more info about the trail, and the towns, than one single book could provide because each one has listings the others don't, tho much is the same. For a week, seven sheets of paper—plus the actual trail map(s). I can keep the sheet for that day in a ziploc in my pocket for easy referral throughout the day, and the map in the brain of my pack to look at when/if I really need to, or in camp.

I realize not everyone has the luxury of doing this, nor free access to a photocopy machine, but this has always worked best for me. In fact, in the next couple weeks I plan to do it again in prep for hiking into Trail Days from the South—something I haven't done for about seven years.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

"Gator, if you want me to give AP high marks just because one of the owners here publishes it, you will be waiting a very long time - the publication will have to earn that from me. I was not going to say anything about the accuracy question, but since you've as much as called me a liar, I am now - my apologies to ATTroll and AWOL, but if you're going to let 'Gator call me a liar, I have no choice but to speak....

I'm still hearing mixed reports about the accuracy of the AP - and most who question it the most strongly are the very experienced hikers. I have as yet to hear an experienced thru-hiker commend this publication for accuracy. Most of the problems I'm hearing about will not make or break a hike -- things like city maps having things in the general area, but maybe on the wrong side of the street or down a few doors.

My personal problem with AP is the lack of info about knobs and gaps and that there is not enough detail to find springs and campsites that aren't obvious (He-Dino and I hiked recently and planned to use a campsite - we ended up hiking about 2 extra miles to a shelter because the AP didn't note that the campsite and spring were across an open field on a ridge and we couldn't find it - and yes, I have told AWOL privately about this location)

I'm not for or against any of these publications - I'm for hikers having enough info about each to choose the one that works best for their hiking style.

[Alligator]

The most accurate, detailed 2008 A.T. guidebook is clearly McCaw's 2008 Thru-Hikers Handbook..

It is closely followed by the 2008 Thru-Hiker's Companion.

If Alligator or anyone else wants to dispute this, have at it.

And this has nothing to do with "biased critiques."

I'm on the Trail. I've been hiking for the better part of a month from Springer, with access to the material in all 3 books. If anyone wants to dispute what I just said, have at it.

"Reasoned explanation" and "objectivity?"

Well, it's very simple.

The best two books out there are the Handbook and the Companion. No question about it.

Um, Alligator, when you call someone a "biased critic", what do you mean?

Also, do you have any association with any of these books you're not mentioning? Are YOU a totally unbiased critic?

For example, I'm a contributor and Field Editor of the Companion, I admit it. I think it's a great book. I also think and have no trouble saying that in many ways, the Handbook, at least at present, is a superior book, tho before I left for Georgia, I consulted both. How's that for unbiased?

Alligator......I notice that you're thanked and listed as a contributor to App.Pages.

Yet, YOU call people out as being biased or being unfair critics? :rolleyes:

Um, a little perspective is in order.I had a failed contribution to Applachian Pages. I offered to develop the profile maps and was unable to resolve a technical problem with them. It was more of a kindness to thank me for trying to help out. I hope I was helpful in getting the name changed and AWOL once suggested that it may have been my idea to have a SOBO version. I think I did make that suggestion, but really, it's not anything of note.

Further, it was my intention to have the profile data later placed in the public domain. This was never discussed because I was unable to complete it. However, AWOL and ATTroll did just that anyway. So it's a moot point.

However, I am not the one making claims of accuracy. I am not making value judgments. So I am not guilty of anything Jack. I am saying to you PROVE the accuracy claim objectively with a sound method. When something is evaluated by arbitrarily sampling information it can easily introduce bias.

Now Jack, I asked you to detail your methods. Show us your opinion was arrived at in a fair manner. I'm going to say that again because I already know you will try to avoid that, you just did. YOUR METHODS. Not your results, because if the methods are unsound the results don't have any weight. Got it? Not a tirade, not a personal attack, just your methodology.

[Alligator]

"Gator, if you want me to give AP high marks just because one of the owners here publishes it, you will be waiting a very long time - the publication will have to earn that from me. I was not going to say anything about the accuracy question, but since you've as much as called me a liar, I am now - my apologies to ATTroll and AWOL, but if you're going to let 'Gator call me a liar, I have no choice but to speak....

I'm still hearing mixed reports about the accuracy of the AP - and most who question it the most strongly are the very experienced hikers. I have as yet to hear an experienced thru-hiker commend this publication for accuracy. Most of the problems I'm hearing about will not make or break a hike -- things like city maps having things in the general area, but maybe on the wrong side of the street or down a few doors.

My personal problem with AP is the lack of info about knobs and gaps and that there is not enough detail to find springs and campsites that aren't obvious (He-Dino and I hiked recently and planned to use a campsite - we ended up hiking about 2 extra miles to a shelter because the AP didn't note that the campsite and spring were across an open field on a ridge and we couldn't find it - and yes, I have told AWOL privately about this location)

I'm not for or against any of these publications - I'm for hikers having enough info about each to choose the one that works best for their hiking style.So let me get this straight, you said you were able to judge the accuracy of the works in two days, but now its not your personal opinion of the accuracy? That's the crux of the lie. But rather than address that statement you use that as an opportunity to further attack their work. That's shameless, it really is.

I have repeatedly asked you to use acceptable methods to judge all the works and instead you rely on hearsay. Kudos for being fair and objective:rolleyes:.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

So let me get this straight, you said you were able to judge the accuracy of the works in two days, but now its not your personal opinion of the accuracy? That's the crux of the lie. But rather than address that statement you use that as an opportunity to further attack their work. That's shameless, it really is.

I have repeatedly asked you to use acceptable methods to judge all the works and instead you rely on hearsay. Kudos for being fair and objective:rolleyes:.I have repeatedly said (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=532117#post532117) that my thoughts on accuracy are the result of what I'm hearing from more AT experienced thru-hikers and section hikers. 'Gator, if you want to keep the accuracy issue front and center, by all means continue what you are doing. I would have been quite content to let it die down and see how AP looks next year. It is, after all, the publications first year out and it was put together from scratch in a very short period - would expect mistakes, omissions, etc. Give them another year to tweak this.

Bob McCaw's publication also has some minor errors - again - it is his first year as the publisher of an existing resource and I will give him a year to tweak it.

[Alligator]

Give it up Dino from the exact link you posted

Jack has come out in public and three other multi-time thrus have told me their thoughts on all three privately - and none of those wish to be named so don't even ask. BTW, after a short trip out of town yesterday I have now seen all three of the publications myself - and had the chance to lay them down side by side and compare. I agree with what Jack and the others have said.You say right above that you are making the call based on your personal findings. Either your evaluation is solely the result of other's information or it is based on both yours and theirs. These can't both logically be true. Therefore you are being untruthful.

And BS on the letting it die. You took yet again an opportunity in this thread to talk about omissions at the start. You were in this thread before I was. YOU are the one who keeps returning to this issue. To not respond is to allow your nonobjectivity to color the discussion.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

"Gator, If you want to believe my assessment is not fair or based on a lie, I can live with that.

[Jack Tarlin]

I'm heading back on the Trail in ten minutes, Alligator, but will provide a lengthy post at some point if you really want it.

My methadology is very simple: I own and have read all 3 of the current Guidebooks. Sorry, but App. Pages seemed to have been rushed into publication with sloppy editing and fact-checking. (Case in point: One of the author's own Internet addresses was printed incorrectly!) As I pointed out in an earlier post about Hanover info, there were all sorts of errors and omissions, including a listing of a restaurant that has been closed for years. It was obvious that neither authoror the section editor had spent much recent time in Hanover and that at last some of their Hanover info was merely taken at face value and copied from another published work. Why else would anyone cite a place that hasn't existed for years?

Sorry, Gator, but my methadology is simple, and my judgment has been perfectly fair. I just acknowledged that the Handbook is, in some respects, better than the book I'm associated with. I have no problem saying this.

How much more fair do you want me to be?

The Handbook and the Companion are simply much more accurate works, at least at present.

[max patch]

Why else would anyone cite a place that hasn't existed for years?



Hmmm.....mapmakers traditionally place a fictitious town someplace ontheir maps. Then if a map of the same area prepared by another company also contains that fake town it's a big GOTCHA!

[Alligator]

Jack, you just admitted your evaluation is biased. You live in Hanover and picked Hanover as the place you chose to evaluate. If you were trying to be objective, you would have incorporated a list of possible towns to choose from, than randomly picked one. But you didn't. See how biases work?

Plus you did exactly what I knew you would. You picked an error, the internet address, without going through the other works and looking for a similar error. [OK maybe you checked them all? ]You don't really know if the other guides made a similar mistake. But it is known that ATTroll's typing isn't the best and you zoomed in on that. You just focused on what you found.

You didn't start from an objective point and I sincerely doubt your ability to even be fair at this point. After all, I did ask you about methods but you had to throw in the commentary on the missing restaurant, thereby slipping in further aspersions. I'd like you to be a little fairer than that;).

[Skyline]

There are undoubtedly factual errors in all three books. If for no other reason, things change between press time and hike time.

Two of the three books out this year (Handbook, Appalachian Pages) were rushed to press by their respective publishers. They gave it their best IMHO considering the time constraints. I would expect both to get better in 2009. I plan to offer all three my support and do a relatively small part to help them become better.

As for critiquing any of the books based on a read-through of just one section, I don't see a problem with that—so long as one chooses the section he is most familiar with (the SNP area for me, Hanover for Jack). I doubt I could provide as accurate of a critique for some section of the AT in New Jersey or New York, even though I've been there more than once, as I can for the section where I live and play almost all year. Same would go for anyone else, I'd think.

Now, if you want to say that a particular book could be accurate everywhere else, and the publisher/editor was just having a bad day when he or she released the section I scoured for accuracy to the printer, that could be true—but not that likely.

[Alligator]

...As for critiquing any of the books based on a read-through of just one section, I don't see a problem with that—so long as one chooses the section he is most familiar with (the SNP area for me, Hanover for Jack). I doubt I could provide as accurate of a critique for some section of the AT in New Jersey or New York, even though I've been there more than once, as I can for the section where I live and play almost all year. Same would go for anyone else, I'd think.
...
No, not really Skyline. Suppose BJ is a contributor for the Hanover section (He is right?). Now he hasn't contributed to Appalachian Pages, but then he reviews Hanover and says the whole book is inaccurate. Suppose though, Hanover by chance had the worst accuracy(for AP). Without sampling across all the towns, he's made a biased assessment.

You can't extrapolate outside the population that you sample. It's a fundamental rule really. That is, expanding your accuracy rate to outside of a particular town is biased if you have not included an opportunity to sample from other towns in your own assessment. It's like sampling from Kansas and saying it applies to the United States.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

"Gator, Jack is out hiking for several days without internet access - how about holding off the bashing until he gets back?

[Alligator]

"Gator, Jack is out hiking for several days without internet access - how about holding off the bashing until he gets back?I was responding to both Jack and Skyline while my thoughts were fresh.

You think that would be fair to wait for Jack because he would operate under those constraints:rolleyes:;)?

[Skyline]

No, not really Skyline. Suppose BJ is a contributor for the Hanover section (He is right?). Now he hasn't contributed to Appalachian Pages, but then he reviews Hanover and says the whole book is inaccurate. Suppose though, Hanover by chance had the worst accuracy(for AP). Without sampling across all the towns, he's made a biased assessment.

You can't extrapolate outside the population that you sample. It's a fundamental rule really. That is, expanding your accuracy rate to outside of a particular town is biased if you have not included an opportunity to sample from other towns in your own assessment. It's like sampling from Kansas and saying it applies to the United States.





Well, the AT section I would be most likely to "get right" would be the one I spend the most time in. But I see your point. Perhaps it would be more fair to publish my comments on WB, about one section, and combine it with others' comments about their section(s).

BTW, I'm not bashing AP or any particular book. I like 'em all. If they all continue to publish, they will all likely get better because of the competition. We should each see to it that each publisher gets the best info about the section(s) we feel we are most qualified to contribute about. Then, it's a matter of formatting, special features (perforation, SOBO edition, extra chapters on unique topics or lack therof to save weight, etc.) that will make one better accepted in the marketplace than the others.

[Alligator]

Well, the AT section I would be most likely to "get right" would be the one I spend the most time in. But I see your point. Perhaps it would be more fair to publish my comments on WB, about one section, and combine it with others' comments about their section(s).
...It moves things in the right direction. The thing that resolves the allegation of bias to a large extent is random sampling.

Suppose you were interested in the town accuracy. One could make a list of all the towns withing X distance of the trail. (This is called a sample frame). Then, randomly pick a sufficient number of towns. Decide on a measure of accuracy. Then a knowledgeable and impartial person(s) could run through each guide's information on the town. Really it would be preferable to not be the person who contributed the information, there could be an underlying conflict of interest and/or the potential to be too familiar where that person may miss things. Like the 8th proofread of something, a fresh set of eyes works wonders.

Now that's just an example of how to be fair, there are certainly other ways to do it. The real important part though is selecting an unbiased sample. Second to that is having a clear, agreed on measure(s).

Eyes glazed over yet:D?

[SGT Rock]

Hey, not to be a total wet blanket but...

The Appalachian Pages site has a forum for reporting errors and feedback about the product and all other sorts of issues. At this point everyone is arguing lots of opinion and/or arguing about how others formed their opinions about the whole thing. If you really have a beef with something about the AP then they actually provide a format to go tell them about it. Seems to me that would be the best place to go and tell them about this.

Remember, a while back I made very strong recommendations to make AP a separate project from WhiteBlaze and they did just that. So, instead of coming here to give AWOL and ATTroll feedback, lets remember that they have a whole separate site and separate place that actually is made for doing just that. I personally think it is a great idea how they are now doing that - which of the other three guides has that sort of set up? Well maybe Thru-Hikers Handbook since Bob has re-opened Trail Place.

So, to encourage folks to move this sort of thing back to www.appalachianpages.com (http://www.appalachianpages.com), I'm going to close the thread so it sort of takes away this option.