Annual Question - Why Doesn't Gore Have a Webcam?

Snowballs wrote

Twas wet here NJ.

Nah, that's not it either.  You said you were at West.

You don't need to apologize for that.  Even had it made sense and could be somehow construed as insulting (rather than just a weird assortment of random words and exclamation points) I cannot be offended by an anonymous person on the internet that I will never meet.

NJ equaled Noah John. Perhaps a comma would have helped. So , .

I skied WF that day and the snow was great- it wasn't wet by any definition of the word.  There is no way that the snow was appreciably different a mere 75 miles away.  It just wasn't.

But even if it was "wet", fresh tracks in that stuff is still fun.  I don't like a wet snowpack after the temp drops but that's not what you were talking about - the conversation was about skiing during the storm.  If the snow's wet and heavy (and it wasn't - see above) just stay in the fall line.

Why don't you regale me with another tale of your high seas adventures on your pontoon boat?  You're sorta funneh.

Noah John wrote

I cannot be offended by an anonymous person on the internet that I will never meet.

The most mature thing I have ever read on an internet forum

Noah John wrote

  There is no way that the snow was appreciably different a mere 75 miles away.  It just wasn't.

You blew it on that one.

WF snow vs. West snow. Yeah, both are the same.

Hell, I'll bet the snow was different at Gore that day. You know, from top to bottom.

I:)skiing wrote

Gore Management:  -I know you are reading this.

I would hope so, but who knows?

Harvey, has Mike Pratt ever stated that he monitors this web site at all?

Here's the Thread

It was a powder day everywhere - including West according to K-Man on page 4.  That storm came in cold and dry.  Utah dry?  Probably not but it was most definitely powder.

Look, I remember the comment like it was yesterday because it was so odd.  If you don't know how to ski - fine - there's no shame in that.  But saying it's "not fun really" - on a site purportedly for skiers - is just ........ weird.

I'll go back to what I have said about this before... a cam at the base would be useless.  Those of us who ski gore reguarly know that the last 300' of the hill in no way represents what the rest of the place skis like.  In the early and late season you get thin cover down there that does not exist on the rest of the mountain.  So, you then have to put the cam at the top of bear mountain near the Gondla.  Even there you have no real image that shows what the skiing is like.  Best place would be midway up Sagamore and halfway up the straight brook chair point towards hawkeye.  Both of those places are very remote.  Line of sight wireless won't work.  You then have to go hard wired fiber... multimode would work if you could keep the run under a mile and a half.  Would not be cheap to install.  Your looking at a buck a foot+install/termination costs.  

I'm willing to be most mountains topography allows them to do line of sight wireless cameras.  Gore's won't.  If it is a choice between no cam and a cam pointed at the base lodge... no camera is probably best.  Otherwise, your looking at at least 10 to 20k to get fiber where you need it... which would have to be speced, bidded, and installed.  

I do like what Stratton does though with their daily "on the mountain" videos.  Would not kill Gore to do those thur-sat.    

Footer wrote

I'll go back to what I have said about this before... a cam at the base would be useless.  

So knowing at 6am there was 3-4" at the base with the likelihood that increases with elevation is useless?

Well now, would anyone REALLY look at a webcam and say, "you know, that grainy, crappy video makes the snow look a bit off.  I better not ski today"
I think if it was pissing rain just about every hardcore-obsessed-downhiller on this site wouldn't give a shit.  
Most likely scenario would have us look at the webcam and say (to paraphrase a great movie) "I don't think the heavy stuff is coming down for a while yet, I better get up there"
Not to mention for we that don't live 40 minutes away, If I'm planning a weekend at Gore, I'm going not matter what a webcam shows me.
Let's not be so serious about the machinery.  I just want something to look at when I'm at work.  A fresh go-pro, iphone video would do me just fine!  There's no actual valuable data garnered from a web cam, it's just FUN to have.

I bet you picture of the day guys would look at the web camera if it was there and more times per day than the picture of the day

A web cam provides information. Almost every other mountain provides it. Why not Gore?

You may think that info is utterly useless, but I think, as others here do, that people want that info.
I promise you that I will look at it, even though the conditions in my yard are the same as Gore's base area.

Gore's web site sucks. This would help. It sure wouldn't hurt. They've spent much more on dumber things.

skimore wrote

So knowing at 6am there was 3-4" at the base with the likelihood that increases with elevation is useless?

With all the weather tools available, you need a crappy webcam image to tell you this?  Completely useless, no.  But almost.

I've seen direct evidence that opinions expressed on NYSB are heard at Gore (and other mtns).  It's can be a bit problematic because at times the distinction between forum opinions which we don't control, and the blog content which we do control, isn't fully understood. I've heard comments by forum members attributed to "blog writers."

One thing I believe is that efforts to be civil in the expression of dissenting opinions, increase their impact. It's human nature to discount singularly negative opinions about your own performance.  Think about what you want to accomplish and ask yourself..."do I want to vent, or do I want a webcam?"

The new Gore website isn't perfect but it is a significant improvement over the last version. It's responsive to tablet and phone which is a major step forward. Neither Gore nor Whiteface have a budget for professional photography on their sites but WF has the advantage of having staff photogs who take pro-quality shots. Brandee's images are awesome and actually Evan is actually a pro.

Beyond Gore mgmt, we know the people at Adworkshop and have found them open to input.  The mobile version of the trail  report now no longer requires navigation through a separate page for each lift pod. It's done with Javascript and IMO it's much easier to use on a phone.  I no longer find myself trying to navigate back to the desktop site to see what's open.  I'm pretty sure that came from a conversation at last November's I SKI NY event in Manhattan.  They also follow the site.

Harvey wrote

I've seen direct evidence that opinions expressed on NYSB are heard at Gore (and other mtns).  It's can be a bit problematic because at times the distinction between forum opinions which we don't control, and the blog content which we do control, isn't fully understood. I've heard comments by forum members attributed to "blog writers."

One thing I believe is that efforts to be civil in the expression of dissenting opinions, increase their impact. It's human nature to discount singularly negative opinions about your own performance.  Think about what you want to accomplish and ask yourself..."do I want to vent, or do I want a webcam?"

The new Gore website isn't perfect but it is a significant improvement over the last version. It's responsive to tablet and phone which is a major step forward. Neither Gore nor Whiteface have a budget for professional photography on their sites but WF has the advantage of having staff photogs who take pro-quality shots. Brandee's images are awesome and actually Evan is actually a pro.

Beyond Gore mgmt, we know the people at Adworkshop and have found them open to input.  The mobile version of the trail  report now no longer requires navigation through a separate page for each lift pod. It's done with Javascript and IMO it's much easier to use on a phone.  I no longer find myself trying to navigate back to the desktop site to see what's open.  I'm pretty sure that came from a conversation at last November's I SKI NY event in Manhattan.  They also follow the site.

If only the powers that be at the NYSB were as open to suggestions.

If the radar was doing this, would you check Gore's webcam? I would.

I'm also the kind of person that if I have a day off and I can go... I go.  If rain is possible, still go.  If it is -10 I still go.  A day on the hill is better then a day at home anytime.  I'm a season pass day counter so more turns means less money spent on those turns.  I just have never found those webcams that useful.  The night before I go it is usually just a black void... day of I'm either going or I'm not.  It is facebook fodder.  

Adk Jeff wrote

skimore wrote

So knowing at 6am there was 3-4" at the base with the likelihood that increases with elevation is useless?

With all the weather tools available, you need a crappy webcam image to tell you this?  Completely useless, no.  But almost.

 What weather tool provides a more accurate picture of the current weather ongoing than a webcam pointed at a picnic table on the deck

skimore wrote

 What weather tool provides a more accurate picture of the current weather ongoing than a webcam pointed at a picnic table on the deck

I thought JasonWx was this sites weather tool.

Footer wrote

  I'm a season pass day counter so more turns means less money spent on those turns.  

Never understood that all you can eat logic. If the food sucks are you going to keep shoveling it in for cost justification