UKC

I keep having a look at the RF database, and these days they seem to be v little feedback in comments. Is this due to UKC logs? I'd like to see the stats on how many comments RF database gets, but I'm sure its' down 80% or more.

In reply to Owen W-G: Perhaps if they considered `paying' climbers for their entries? Doesn't necesarily mean cash could be credits towards a publication or something?

In reply to Owen W-G:

the number of RF comments has definitely dropped off in the last few years, it would be good though if people actually did put some worthwhile comments in the logbooks (which never should have had a hidden option in the first place).

In reply to Morgan Woods:

I generally try to leave comments in the UKC logbooks and occasionally Rockfax. Usually however, with the vast majority of routes, specific beta isn't really necessary and may be more of a hindrance (to those with a very pure ethic!) than a help.

In reply to Owen W-G:

Feedback has dropped a little in recent years, probably due to Logbooks as you suggest. We still find that we are getting plenty of comments though. We do check both databases before printing a guidebook.

The two databases should really have a different purposes but often the end users aren't completely aware of this (understandably). UKC Logbook comments are to record your thoughts on your ascent (hence the 'hidden' option) and Rockfax is to record general information on the route which might be useful for other users.

We have some major plans for Logbooks and RF Databases which will make feedback much easier to give, and hopefully increase both the number and usefulness of comments. This will include adding lines to topos function amongst other things.

Alan

In reply to Queequeg:

true but there is a lot you can say about the quality and style of a route without giving away an onsight.

In reply to Alan James - UKC:

I do still try to comment when I can ever since the most recent Dorset guide paraphrased me on Botony Bay to much pride.