/ Routes- The Voting System
The same theme can be seen in lots of routes, especially those at the highest grade. Routes like Indian Face and Equilibrium have votes all over the place in every category, presumably mostly by people who have done little more than look at it or watch a video.
Please get me wrong, i'm not bitter and I don't have an answer for this. I just wonder why people do o.O
I did some new routes that were literally dug out of the hillside (old quarry with probably 70 years of vegetation and earth) and someone put them in their logbooks for the year before i did them! very odd!
There's nowt as strange as folk.
I've wondered this myself. I think the final say would be down to the next guidebook author for the area, but I imagine sites like this influence their decisions.
> On a vaguely related topic, if a load of people vote a route as the grade above or below - eg Fate at Stanage http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=9967 at what point does the grade get changed?
The crag moderator or UKC can change the grade (on UKC), there is no automatic means by which it happens though. As for guide book writers, hopefully they know enough about their areas to filter out the noise.
> The same theme can be seen in lots of routes, especially those at the highest grade. Routes like Indian Face and Equilibrium
Routes like that are bound to attract weird behaviour. I'm more surprised that people bother 'ballpointing' new stuff.
It would be nice if the moderator bumped it up to the newer grade of E2 but not the end of the world if he doesn't.
Thanks for that... some common sense and a recognition that UKC is far from the last word on grades.
Unless things altered recently there is a problem with logbook grade changes as all the votes get lost when this is done. I know they are looking for improvements in this area, which will be very welcome.
The way to defeat the outliers and herd voting is for anyone experienced, who supports the idea of the UKC database, who climbs an obscure route or a route where the grade is creeping or on anything else that needs a reality check, to make a comment. As a guidebook worker I take comments seriously from UKC experienced regulars but take any grades with a large pinch of salt. I'd say UKC voting averages, on large voting numbers, is a quarter to half a grade too high on popular soft touches at Stanage at HS and VS. If UKC votes can't get it better than this on some of the most climbed routes in the country it shows that they need to be regarded as data with a known (likely consistent) bias.
At lower grades there is always the undistilled view of Moff and I (as BMC guidebook work is a democratic collective, even for a volume editor) on Offwidth:
Makes sense. Thanks. I wasn't sure if it got to a certain critial number of votes and changed automatically, but as all the votes get lost when it changes then I can see why they don't change often.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with a big overlap in grading, if you knew exactly how hard a climb was going to be it would definitely take some of the fun out of it. As long as you're not being sandbagged onto a chop route.
Good work - I've been up to those top moves loads of times and never had the bottle to do it. Rather amused to see it on a ticklist entitled "UK's Best Slab Routes"!
It's not even the best slab at High Neb, never mind Stanage!
It's E1 in my old definitive guide, so I'd expected nice runners in the pockets! A couple of bold balancey steps and it's over though, so top end E1 sounds reasonable. Especially as it's so escapable all the way. I agree, it's good to have some flexibility in the grades, otherwise there'd be no fun!
The seperate issue of inflated voting is fairly inevitable I feel, people are on the whole more likely to "big up" their achievements than admit the route they've just climbed is a soft touch for its respective grade. If the data is viewed with this in mind then it is still a helpful tool.
The votes (especially in the more accessible grades) reflect a broad range of climbers - from the very experienced who have made 100's of ascents at the given grade to those who are just breaking into a new grade, the opinions of all these climbers are valid. I abhor the idea that your opinion on a grade is only relevant if you have climbed x amount of routes at the grade - if you've been on the route you are entitled to an opinion!
I agree! The first person to say the three words (followed by 'E1 for sure') will be hunted down and dragged face first down the thing :).
I vote only on routes I've climbed but I never keep a log.
A lot of people have been filling their logbooks with legacy ticks hence, the fact that a route hadn't been climbed when you uploaded it, nor since apparently, doesn't mean the ascents are bogus. There are hundreds of hard trad routes across the country that were once very popular but now see much less traffic.
Of course the date of the ascent may give you the impression it was climbed a a separate time, but I think some people are rather sloppy with their dating after all, I have no idea when I did some routes on obscure routes on high Lakeland crags. I probably couldn't even be sure of getting the right decade, never mind month and year! If you just want the tick then it is quicker to ignore the date.
That doesn't surprise me - celebrity routes and all that.
Overall I don't think "UKC is full of people" who do this, I think there may be a few weirdos out there who like to create bogus logbooks. This is almost certainly swamped by true data on the vast majority of routes.
I know I have said this before, but this time we really are about to sort this. I have an email from Nick asking me to test the new system which I'll get to later today.
I don't disagree with this. I have always maintained that grades need a much larger majority of votes to be considered for an upgrade than they do for a downgrade. This is due to human nature of regarding routes they found hard as undergraded and routes they found easy as their own brilliant performance.
We have maintained a consistent policy on this for all our recent guidebooks.
> A lot of people have been filling their logbooks with legacy ticks...
> Of course the date of the ascent may give you the impression it was climbed a a separate time, but I think some people are rather sloppy with their dating after all, I have no idea when I did some routes on obscure routes on high Lakeland crags. I probably couldn't even be sure of getting the right decade, never mind month and year! If you just want the tick then it is quicker to ignore the date.
I'd forgotten that I've done that before. I sometimes go to a crag page and just tick all the routes I have done there. No details, no dates. Until I changed the date of ascent to a rough guess at the year, it looked like I'd done all the routes very recently. This seems like a potential answer to the OP's observation.
Ivanator - I am a bit haphazard with my grading in the logbooks. If I have lots of time, then I vote on the grade, but I often don't. Sometimes I only vote if I think the guidebook/UKC grade is a bit off. Similarly, I haven't got all the routes I've climbed in my UKC log, so I have to admit that I sometimes vote on the grade of a route that isn't in my logbook.
As Alan says, there will always be a few strange folk who want to fake an onsight of an E10, but that is drowned out by the wealth of good data. More voting please! It would be great if people could vote for every single route or problem they tick.
You can get a good idea of the technical grade though. And if you're honest can probably get a feel for what the adjectival guide might be without side runners...
> More voting please! It would be great if people could vote for every single route or problem they tick.
I usually try and do this, but one thing I've always thought would be useful is the facility to retrospectively amend the grade / stars you awarded to a given route. On quite a number of occasions I've wished to adjust either the grade or the stars I've previously given.
Could this be catered for?
There we go - now changed.
You ask we deliver ;-)
On Eastern Grit I've been very impresed how you took a sensible view on grades likely slightly inflated by UKC/Rockfax votes. Same for the popular crags I know on Western grit (eg Roaches) but its hard to get sensible views on obscure stuff (like Ravenstones far right... which is why I was surprised to see you include some of it when better and more popular crags missed the cut). I do think your graded lists sub-divisions do suffer a bit more from over reliance on votes (ie easy for the grade cf mid cf hard).
Ivanators point is true that its easy to spot the trend on popular Stanage climbs but at some point the herd votes drop and the experienced vote is more accurate. Ivory Tower is a good example E0 from votes yet most people thinking Inverted V is mid VS would regard this as E2.
Yes, but it doesn't mean all opinions are equal, some are just garbage. Opinions from someone who's done a 100 of a grade are surely worth weighting higher than someone doing their first few.
At the same time, its hard to be consistent about grades that are too far below your limit.
Except for someone who has done 100 VS leads but normally climbs at E5, then I'd put more weight on the opinion of the person climbing at the grade and comparing it with other similar routes they had done.
They may both be talking nonsense mind.
I'm asking ;-)
Also the retrospective alteration of voting is something that appeals in this quarter as well, what are your thoughts?
Two in one day, don't push your luck!
I think what might work here is a 'remove my vote' option. I can't see a problem with that though since we already have the system in place for photo votes.
I'll discuss it with the code wizards.
> Also the retrospective alteration of voting is something that appeals in this quarter as well, what are your thoughts?
Surly your best impression of the grade of a route is the 1st time you do it. Why might you want to change that grade later?
> Except for someone who has done 100 VS leads but normally climbs at E5, then I'd put more weight on the opinion of the person climbing at the grade and comparing it with other similar routes they had done.
> They may both be talking nonsense mind.
Yeah, I said that too, last sentence.
1. You chose the wrong vote by mistake
2. You logged the wrong route by mistake
3. The route changes following rockfall,loss of crucial hold, etc
4. You find an easier method the next time
All good points I wonder how many more we can think of:
5 You had a panic attack first time and realise it was in fact easy later.
6 Your vote was a long time ago and grade changes mean that it has been lost.
7 New technology has made the route easier.
8 A protection placement has broken.
9 A key peg now looks shit when it once looked OK
I make a point now when I get scared to recheck. I don't think its possible to grade accurately when you are terrified.
10 It's an offwidth and the first time you climbed it you were facing the wrong way.
> 1. You chose the wrong vote by mistake
> 2. You logged the wrong route by mistake
> 3. The route changes following rockfall,loss of crucial hold, etc
> 4. You find an easier method the next time
I see your points, but arguably you're opinion might be tainted with retrospective analysis. The onsight experience is once and once only, and thats how the grades are defined.
... and when we release our Rockfax app then you will be able to vote while at the crag, just after your skin-of-teeth ascent/failure - not the best time to vote really. The cold light of the pub later on might lead you to a reassessment of your performance, especially if your mates waltz up it putting your ascent into perspective.
Perhaps we should put a time delay on app voting.
> I see your points, but arguably you're opinion might be tainted with retrospective analysis. The onsight experience is once and once only, and thats how the grades are defined.
Thank you - I was going to say that but couldn't be bothered,
But they're also for the easiest method aren't they? If you miss that then your opinion is likely to be wrong.
> But they're also for the easiest method aren't they? If you miss that then your opinion is likely to be wrong.
But as long as your not at your limit or miles above it, then you have a decent chance of finding that sequence, hence my earlier point about opinions. And if the sequence is really that bizarre, then the grade should reflect the technicality.
Not saying it happens often, but worth having the option for when it does
We did an experiment years ago regarding onsight and worked grading for sport routes. I bolted a route in Greece and 6 experienced climbers (3 were instructors and one a guide) two of whom had written guidebooks climbed it onsight. I chalked every possible hold and belayed while the others looked away.
The onsight grade suggestions varied from 6a to 7b.
Working the route/with beta two gave 6a and the rest 6a+.
So what grade can you give in the guide? To onsight the sequence wasn´t obvious but on the other hand if you believed the grade given was correct and you found it nails you would know you should look harder for the correct holds and not get led astray by the attractive but useless jug out to the left.
I think grading sport routes is a different matter. I was talking about UK trad.
> The onsight experience is once and once only, and thats how the grades are defined.
I see your point too, but grades aren't always for the onsight. It just seems to me to be more flexible having a system which permits a degree of reconsideration or correction.
I don't think grades are quite as you suggest.
I have tried to deal with the subject of onsight v redpoint here under Sport Grade heading - http://www.rockfax.com/publications/grades/
Onsight or Redpoint?
An onsight grade assumes that you turn up at the base of the route and climb it with no prior knowledge; a red-point grade assumes that you have practiced every move on the route until you know it intimately before your ascent and the redpoint grade is the grade of the route on the final clean ascent. Some sport routes can become significantly easier once you know a trick or a sequence, and others barely change in grade at all no matter how familiar they are. For example two routes could both be given 6c+ for the onsight ascent, yet one of them becomes dead easy once you figure out the sequence. This presents a grading problem since, in reality, one of the routes is a lot easier than the other and it is conceivable that someone could hit the correct sequence on their onsight.
What generally tends to happen with grades across the world is that routes are graded in the style that they are usually climbed. So for easier routes below about 6b+ the grade is almost invariably an on-sight grade. For routes above about 7b it is almost always given a redpoint grade. In between is a bit of a grey area and the practice can vary from location to location.
Rockfax guidebooks cover routes in areas of mixed sport and trad climbing so we tend to go for the redpoint grade in the 6c to 7a region however we do make a slight qualification of the Rockfax ‘onsight’ grade; we use the ‘first try – easiest method’ grade. This basically assumes that you are climbing onsight, but you do use the correct holds and sequence.
> I think grading sport routes is a different matter. I was talking about UK trad.
Unless I missed something in the thread there wasn´t any distinction made and certainly there isn´t in the voting system.
In both the sport and trad grading system there is an band above which worked routes and grades are the accepted rule unless suddenly everyone has started onsighting English 6c and above and the guidebooks are reflecting this.
I agree. But I was replying to the thread rather than the OP, which to me seemed to be talking about UK trad. And when it comes to trad at 6c and up, then yes my argument breaks down somewhat, but the amount of climbers that affects is vanishingly small.
I think you need to read his list again and remember your years of analytical training and maybe apologise ;-;
1) & 2) & 3) Maybe retrospective but that would be the point!
4) Surely retrospective but onsights need to take this into account at least on a nominal basis. If you climb well on a route with a tricky sequence some climbers will spot it and find it a breeze, most won't. Alternately if you climbed like a heap of shit and the method was obvious to a calmer climber you were just plain wrong. Grades are defined as a nominal average of an adequately experinced climber in standard conditions, not on any old individual experience.
PS I like Alan's equivalent of counting to ten. Plus if you add reasonable to his definition of the easiest sequence for an onsight its pretty good. I remember a few arguments like this on grit extremes and my view remains if the move is there and not almost impossible to spot then you grade for the correct tech grade and maybe adjust the adjectival to allow for the difficulty of spotting the trick.
Thank you for your guidance in this matter. If one day I am worthy of using your shite for toothpaste, please do not hesitate (as I know you won't) to point it out. Your work on the General Theory of Relative Grading, once finished, I'm sure will prove to be a seminal work and all this pish and banter will be replaced by Grading Tomography or whatever you decide to call it. 'All non-trivial zeros of the Offwidth function have real-part one half'; very elegant, good luck with the proof.
Your Padawan learner,
Elsewhere on the site
As a long-standing name in the UK rockshoe market, Scarpa have a loyal following and many much-loved models. As a fan... Read more
I am Matthew Phillips, I'm nearly 14 and I was born without my right arm below the elbow. I started climbing at taster... Read more
A product review by James Turnbull. James Turnbull at Outside recently took the new Osprey Mutant 38 on a rigorous test in the... Read more