  |
|
SPARK_COACH_JEN
8/11/06 3:59 P
|
|
|
|
As we get more we'll have to look at a different way to categorize them, so that will probably happen at some point.
Coach Jen
|
|
|
|
Thanks Jen.
During my run just now I was wondering if I was in the wrong: as I'm sure like you said, there are those who are looking for those types of quick suggestions. I was actually heading over here to revise my post (LOL).
I personally tend to think of recipes as the full scale deal and when I look for them, I sort of expect to see a bit of "umf" involved.
But thanks for listening. I wonder if they can be catoragarized differently....
|
|
SPARK_COACH_JEN
8/11/06 3:35 P
|
|
|
|
M,
Thanks for the feedback! We are trying to have a mix of simple and more complicated recipes, so we don't really consider it to be "dumbing down". I would think of that recipe as a simple alternative for someone who wants a quick treat or maybe doesn't like to do a lot of cooking.
I'll pass along your comments.
Coach Jen
|
|
|
|
I love love love SP and the tracking tools so I really don't want to complain, (esp. since these great tools are provided gratis). However, I have had consistent feelings since the inception of "user" sharable recipes and I have to say something.
I really think that SP is not being selective enough when choosing to accept user recipes. For example, today's coffee "recipe" is not a recipe, it is simply coffee dressed up with the usual low cal alternatives.
I've seen a number of these "recipes" come through and have held my tounge but I can not handle the dumb-ing down of the program much longer. I really enjoyed the limited, higher quality recipes on the site prior to allowing users to "share". A couple of times I attempted to weed through the faux-recipes but decided the whole process was a waste of my time. Now I do my recipes elsewhere.
As I said, I love SP and the fact that it is free. I would hate to see this turn into another "you get what you pay for (free)" websites with low caliber offerings.
Thanks for listening.
|
|
