UKC

In a recent UKC thread (Gogarth North Guidebook discussion) Alan James admitted that UKC has refused to accept a number of posts/threads which he considers to be unsubstantiated digs at Rockfax. His comment was "why should we?"

Well, no reason really Alan, if that's how you want your site to operate i.e. not as an the host of a positively regarded 'open' forum for discussion but rather as a selectively censored vehicle for the promotion of your own company. None of us really knows how much you manipulate the content of the site do we?

However, if that's how you operate things then maybe we need our representative body to step up to the plate and produce a genuinely open forum in which all things climbing can be freely discussed without being distorted by the editorial decisions of vested interests.

Wonder how long this post will survive?

In reply to colin struthers: Why the BMC? Anyone can rent a server for £10/month and run a stock forum (almost all of which are significantly more advanced than UKCs forum).

In reply to colin struthers:
There might be problems for the 'Representative Body for Climbers, Mountaineers and Hillwalkers' to host some of the opinions expressed on UKC? There may well be a need for stricter moderation?

I can see some of the new stuff at the BMC - BMCTV for example - having an impact but for scurrilous gossip, unsubstantiated rumour, and plain wrong opinions there is no better place than UKC. Is there?

I believe that there are other forums that are not allied to a particular commercial enterprise? Why are they not as popular?

In reply to colin struthers: As a partially publicly funded organisation the BMC would have an obligation to seriously moderate a BMC Forum. This would take a lot of resources.

The BMC had it's own forum years ago, maybe 10 years ago, during my time working for them (2000-2007). It was quickly shelved for the reason I have mentioned.

In reply to colin struthers:

Firstly - "unsubstantiated..."

Quite within their rights then.

Secondly - you've made a heck of a leap from UKC refusing to allow some (libellous?) posts to them being some crazed fascist dictatorship.

Thirdly - go somewhere else and stop crying round here if you don't like it.

In reply to colin struthers:

Could I just ask - how recent was this thread Colin?

Are we talking about the last few days? Weeks?

Or perhaps this is a muck raking attempt from a thread that ran months ago.

In reply to colin struthers: It's worth pointing out that the BMC produces guidebooks, as well as (or better than, for those of a pedantic nature). So there might very well be moderation of threads having digs at the BMC.

Who pays the piper calls the tune.

In reply to colin struthers:

Feel free to ask this question on Monday when I will be online all day on a Q and A specifically about the forums.

Alan

In reply to colin struthers:


If Alan thinks a comment/attack is unsubstantiated, why should he accept it?!?
I could say Colin S is a $%^*%$%£, with no backup, you'd want the post removed.
Compared to other forums, UKC is extremely easy going.

In reply to Rampikino:

I would guess is this one - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566806&v=1#x7538461

Pretty current I'd have thought.

In reply to andyathome:

Fair enough.

In reply to Lusk:

Because it is a forum for discussion rather than a marketing tool? Because Alan is not supposed to be the final arbiter of what appears on UKC? Bloody hell - the number of posts on here that are unsubstantiated blox is unbelievable. But they are accepted.

In reply to andyathome:

You actually believe Alan should allow unsubstantiated digs at his own business interests to stand?

Naive.

In reply to Rampikino:


That has been said before

In reply to colin struthers: UKB is an independent web forum for British climbers, why not use that? If you slag off the UAE guide you might get one of the owners grumpy (although probably not very) so you can say what you like there.

I suspect everyone knows that UKC is owned by the owner of Rockfax. It's not a massive surprise that the one thing that Alan might get annoyed by is people using the website he owns to criticize his other business, but even having said that - I've seen massive discussions on Rockfax here, with plenty of strong criticism, regularly ever since I started using the site in 1999 or maybe 2000 - a long time back anyway. You can say a lot of negative things about Rockfax without having any problems at all if you keep it reasonable, people always have done. Beyond that, there's not much you can't say on UKC and it provides a valuable service to thousands of people and has done for over a decade at no cost to the users.

In reply to andyathome:

Ha ha!

In all honesty the key word is "unsubstantiated"

That swings it.

Reasonable criticism is fine but what could effectively amount to libel is too much.

In reply to Rampikino:

You say unsubstantiated, but what the op actually said was "what he considers to be unsubstantiated". That's a whole world of difference (I recall Alan referring to a statement of opinion as libellous in a previous discussion despite supporting evidence being provided) from something that's provably unsubstantiated.

In reply to Rampikino:

Very. I'm often surprised at how much AJ lets go and for how long.

E

In reply to colin struthers:
Given that you have frequently used the UKC forums to make unsubstantiated and possibly libellous accusations against the BMC, it seems odd that you would want a BMC forum to make similar statements about UKC.

Surely we need someone completely independent to host such a forum, someone who would not seek nor accept grubby money from advertisers either. Someone fearless enough to take the risk that they could be taken to court.

Good luck finding them, but please don't drag the BMC down your rabbit hole, they have far more important things to do.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Good point. Was it the North West Area that once asked Alan to leave their meeting?

In reply to Kipper:

Actually not a good point at all. As NW Area Chairman I never, ever asked anyone to leave a meeting - the idea of doing so would have appalled me.

Indeed I would happily have put up with someone like you making comments as stupid as this.

In reply to colin struthers:

No the BMC couldn't do it for the reasons already given. I'll keep the rest I want to say on this for Monday.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'll not be on line on Monday, (off to Font, poor me!). So here's my 2ps worth now.

Rockfax and UKC provide a really useful resource (and much entertainment) for climbers in the UK (and elsewhere). I'm very much in favour of definitive guidebooks and can see the problems with selective guides "cherry-picking", but that needs to be balanced out with some of the positives - for example, rockfax effectively opened up Portland.

For the record, I'm a CC member, and am involved in guidebook work (North Devon and Cornwall). The logbook system is proving very useful to us, and Alan is happy for us to make use of it and for various authors to take over moderating some of the crags etc.

I hope the Q & As will be archived and I look forward to reading them.

In reply to colin struthers:

Maybe before your day, maybe a different area, maybe Alan will let us know.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

As you know, I was a voluntary officer of the BMC for quite a few years and the free time and effort i put into supporting its activities hardly makes me anti BMC (as your post seeks to suggest).

A forum is supposed to be a place where a variety of opinions and ideas are freely expressed and discussed. The idea that I would want an independent forum to "make statements" is therefore just plain silly.

Please try to confine your criticism to the things I actually said in my original post rather than to the opinions that you seem to want to ascribe to me (although I appreciate that it will be easier for you to 'win' in a fantasy discussion where you get to write both sides of the argument).

I raised this post because Alan James has acknowledged that he has removed posts and threads that he personally deems to be 'unsubstantiated'. Its his website and of course he can do what he wants with it. But the point I was making was whether UKC should continue to be our, the wider climbing community's, default website. You see there is actually a potential conflict of interest between UKC/Rockfax and the interests of ordinary climbers. Here is the obvious example:

A new voluntary guide to the Ormes and N. Wales coast has been in preparation for some time. The authors of this guide have agreed that all profits accruing from what will be a major publication, will go to the bolt fund that pays for the equipping of these crags. A jolly good thing I'm sure you will agree.

Latterly however, Rockfax have published a commercial guidebook covering the main crags due to feature in the original independent guidebook. A large proportion of the independent guidebook sales that would have helped to fund the equipping of these crags may well be lost because of this. Rockfax were prevailed upon not to publish their rival guidebook because of the negative impact that doing so would probably have on the bolt fund. They went ahead anyway.

A lot of people were angry about this. Some of them said so on UKC. I imagine some of their posts were deleted.

Is it a good thing that one of the parties in this debate gets to delete opinions he considers to be unsubstantiated?

Are you staring to get the point?

In reply to colin struthers:

If it bothers you that much, set up your own forum and run it however you want to. If you disagree with how UKC is run then vote with your feet.

I personally think tha the mods do a pretty good job of running it, especially when you consider how much time it must take.

David

In reply to colin struthers:

I'm afraid your post comes across to me as bitter, anti Rockfax muck raking.

Go elsewhere if you're not happy - UKC is NOT independent.

In reply to colin struthers:

My personal view is that AJ is entirely within his rights to run this forum as he sees fit. It's his sandbox, he's not charging us entry. He is giving his time freely to us to run this site and we all benefit from it (well, I certainly do).

However, I have crossed swords a number of times with him over the forums and the way relatively innocuous material is deleted when certain other material and behaviour (e.g. internet bullying and highly unpleasant sexist posts) is allowed to remain. My fiancee (a climber), for example, doesn't use this forum because of this kind of content.

I know of another high profile forum where a substitute forum *was* set up by users and the decent people defected en masse, leaving only the whiners and abusers on the original. Like others have said here, its not hard, and if I didn't have a full time job I'd do it.

But, the thing is, I do have a full time job. I don't have the time. There isn't a substitute. Hence my view is that the current forum is the best we've got until something else comes along. However if something else does come along then I'll be a (if necessary) paid up member in seconds. Sorry AJ.

In reply to John_Hat:


Why not go to UKB? I think UKB's long lasting existence shows it is a viable alternative to UKC, but the fact that loads of UKC users don't go there shows that plenty of people get enough out of UKC for that to outweigh being bothered over occasional posts being cut - normally because of some criticism of Rockfax.

In reply to TobyA:

Do they all wear beanies and say "dude"? Don't think I could cope...

In reply to Rampikino:

I don't agree.

This thread is much less about "unsubstantiated digs at Rockfax" than the right to discuss three genuinely held concerns held by passionate UK climbers about the perceived impact of Rockfax's new North Wales Guide, specifically:

- Undermining the imminent comprehensive guide to North Wales Limestone and funding of it's bolt provision

- Threat to access to slate by inclusion of Dali's Hole

- Delay or threat to publication of the vitally important (if you care about one of the UK's premier adventure climbing areas) Gogarth South, including undermining of Ground Up's selective guide, which would help to fund Gogarth South.

In reply to TobyA:

Post get cut, people get banned, for all sorts of reasons, I doubt it is 'normally' anything to do with criticising Rockfax.

In reply to John_Hat:

They don't say dude, and they do get along famously, and it's not just bouldering. I go there for the banter which is fantastic but I don't post much cos I'm shy and its a little cliquey to penetrate.

Many of them utterly despise the UKC forums, mostly for all the right reasons, but perhaps they fail to recognise that UKB is largely impenetrable for the average beginner who will naturally gravitate to UKC and that tends to carry baggage.

Basically, they haven't got time for lots of questions from beginners asking whether this VD is a sandbag or which way up a clove hitch goes, that sort of conversation doesn't really occur, they take their climbing seriously. People who talk shite are given short shrift, so arguments are far less common. And there's little ambiguity when things are obviously wrong, no one for instance would stick up for the Millstone drytooling idiots, and there isn't really any trolling (that I've seen). Its also very male.

There are a fair few people that post on both channels. Shark jointly owns UKB for instance.

There is a history of UKC censoring posts that are critical of UKC and Rockfax. Given UKC's near monopoly on climbing discussions on the internet and UKC and Rockfax's position in UK climbing this is an abuse of power.

People are arguing up and down this thread that this is Alan's party and he can throw his toys out the pram and delete posts if he wants to -- in which case there should be efforts to break the monopoly and provide alternative places for these discussions. Personally I can see a role for the BMC here, either as mediator or as an alternative provider. If the kiddies at UKB would grow up for a minute then...

FWIW I've a copy of the deleted thread in question and at the expense of crossing Alan's first rule of fight club it was pretty mild to the point of being even more boring than the average UKC thread.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

UKBouldering? Sorry the name is enough to stop me.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: It's not a monopoly, as already said you're free to start your own site. Why do you think the BMC should use our resources to provide a platform for you to bitch and moan?

In reply to Kipper:

I was never asked to leave any BMC meeting. In fact I have always felt very welcome at BMC meetings, including ones in the NW.

As for the other points: I don't really want to get into the North Wales Limestone thing again, that was done to death on a thread here http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552134

In reply to Mark Kemball: I appreciate your questions about Rockfax and guidebooks, however the QandA on Monday is about the UKC Forums so I won't be answering questions on Rockfax, guidebooks and bolt funds. Perhaps that could be a topic for another QandA some time.

Alan

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I don't think you quite understand what a monopoly is... Theoretically you're free to start your own oil business in Russia, but I'm not sure you'd have much luck if you tried.

There is certainly space for a friendly, usable online forum that is free from such profit concerns. It needs to be integrated with news and photo galleries - easy enough. I'm half tempted to try myself... The problem lies in UKC's logbook feature though. This is so much information, produced by so many thousands of people, that you will never be able to compete with that. And what you have there is a very solid website that people don't want to do without.

UKB may be a joke of a forum, full of sexist louts in an unusable format. But even if it wasn't, the average punter sees nothing wrong with UKC. Perhaps you could have something with more up-to-date news, as UKC is a bit detached from what's going on sometimes. Perhaps a little more regional? But it would take ages for people to start going over there. I mean, how would people find out about it? On UKC?!

In reply to Franco Cookson: I think i do, is it the exclusive possession or control of a trade or commodity? Accepting that users are a commodity, how is ukc possessing or controlling you? How is ukc preventing you setting up as a rival?

In reply to colin struthers:



From your profile - "Regard UKC forums as a tragic waste of time and wish I could stop myself from posting".

Perhaps you need to heed your own advice, in order for you to get the point?

In reply to Franco Cookson: So why do you post on UKB?. Is it the sexism or loutish behaviour that attracts you?

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell:

Generally to defend myself from loutish or incorrect information, or 'farnellisms' as I like to call them.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think you may need to reread my post again - you've missed at least one word. For reference, for practical purposes in Europe, market dominance (monopoly position) is >38% of the market share so, unless UKB is way bigger than I think, "near monopoly" is a fair and accurate description.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

Had a little snigger at that. Nice answer Franco.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: And how is ukc preventing a competitor from competing?
And in case you missed the earlier question, why should the BMC use our resources to provide a forum for you to bitch and moan?

In reply to Franco Cookson: can you provide some accurate examples of these loutish or incorrect statements, rather than wild stabs in the dark. Or 'cooksonisms'.

Andy F

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Right. Well done you.

In reply to andy farnell:

Well, there's lots of fit burd type stuff, although I admit to ploughing through those at length. Simon seems to have reigned all that in though.

In reply to John_Hat:


You see that is going to upset the owners. But no, not really.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

"And how is ukc preventing a competitor from competing?" - I didn't say it was preventing a competitor from competing I said it was abusing its near monopoly position.

"why should the BMC use our resources to provide a forum" - I didn't say it should- I did say I could see a role for the BMC to mediate or provide an alternative (so as to help fix the abuse of the monopoly position).

However, to answer your question directly - perhaps the BMC should provide a neutral forum for all aspects of climbing to be freely discussed without fear of censorship due to commercial or vested interests. I'd certainly like to see an alternative logbook system that would divorce logbooks from the threat of account suspension if you wish to criticise UKC or Rockfax. In doing so I would see the BMC supporting the climbing community which is well within its remit.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

And me.

And remind me which large rock climbing, mountaineering & hill-walking organisation was considering buying UKB before Shark did.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: So set up an alternate system if you're so worried about your logbook, but do it with your money and don't waste the BMC's time and resources.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Don't bother with Supertopo either, it's all about crag diagrams.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

And 8a.nu, it's purely for those who climb uberhard.

Andy F

In reply to andy farnell: Like

But obviously Jens is the main reason to not use 8a.poo

In reply to duchessofmalfi:
If anything, I'd actually be more worried about a forum where the BMC had the last word on what stays up and what gets pulled than one where Rockfax do. Because sometimes the BMC does contentious stuff, too, and, although I've got no issues with them at the moment, if they did go crazy then the stakes would potentially be much higher than just a guidebook.

In any case, the Stalinist suppression of dissent doesn't seem that thorough at the moment - the thread that Alan linked to above has some fairly robust criticism in it, for instance.

In reply to Ramblin dave: Quite.

Imagine all of the various climbing & the Olympics threads being hosted on a BMC run forum.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

" don't waste the BMC's time and resources"

I'll have to disagree with you here - I don't think it would be a waste of time and money - much like the RAD.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Well, they're exactly the kind of contentious threads which I would expect to be *allowed* on a forum operated the BMC: they reflect an important debate. Are you suggesting they wouldn't/shouldn't be?

There shouldn't be any censorship of the *issues* involved - that's the point.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: You can disagree if you like, it's a free country.

In reply to colin struthers:

The BMC aren't independent when it comes to guidebook publishing, are they ?

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If a shadowy cabal of Vested Interests in the BMC really had been trying to railroad the olympic thing through against everyone's best interests without properly consulting the membership then yes, I'd expect that vanishing forum posts and dissenters getting banned for "abusive behaviour" wouldn't have been beyond them either.

In reply to Rob Parsons:It is known that the opponents of free access frequent places like UKC to get 'evidence' of climbers flouting agreements ie people advocating ignoring bans. Think Vixen Tor.

Now if this was hosted on a BMC forum this 'evidence' would be used as evidence. Not good.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Lots of interesting climbing stuff on The Taco. Believe it or not something that I'm interested in. The trip reports are inspiring.
The moderating is good too - however even Chris Mac had to draw the line when the "Boobs" thread reached 2000 posts which was a shame.

E

In reply to Ramblin dave:


You might be right.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I think I have an explanation for this hatred in story form.

Mike and Steve were bouldering, in the great wilderness, Mike was working his project, frustrated he yells, "Jesus how could johnny dawes do this without hands, that crazy dude". It was at late as early september but conditions were still not on his side. Steve says 'it's alright dude, try it without your beanie on', he takes a moment to look at those imposing bare cliffs and notices a trad climber at least 5 or maybe even 6 metres above the ground on a VS crack route. Something catches his eye, the gleam of a the single gold bead on a camalot x4. 'It cannot be, they're barely out yet!' Steve thinks to himself. A lump forms in his throat and he chants to himself 'I am a boulderer, I am a boulderer'. A tear wells up and he turns, wiping it away. Mike asks him, 'everything okay dude?' and Steve replies, 'yeah dude I'm fine, lets crush this man'.

To be continued...

Typed on my mobile phone.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

" You can disagree if you like, it's a free country."

Here lies the crux of the issue - I can disagree if I like but not if it conflicts with UKC interests I can't because my post may be deleted and my account may be suspended. So the question is how to balance the interests of the individual member, the climbing community and free speech against the commercial interests of UKC and Rockfax?

I think it is self evident that there is concern about this problem - I don't think we'd be having this discussion if people weren't worried.

The vast majority of the content of UKC, including the forums, crag database and logbooks was created by the community. I don't know who legally owns this content but I don't consider that UKC owns my additions to the crag database, my contributions to the forums or my logbook but it exerts a powerful control over all of them. When I post I consider my content goes into the public domain and ownership reverts to the community - just like an entry in a new routes book.

Before you (SC) start back on "start your "setup your own website then" type arguments, the problem here is that any privately owned site might exert similar controls around similar vested interests and that what is needed is an independent community body with democratic representation - a bit like the BMC maybe - to arbitrate when it comes to this form of censorship. There is certainly space for the reform of UKC in this respect - don't get me wrong the site has many fine features but this censorship issue is a real problem.

In reply to duchessofmalfi: This "When I post I consider my content goes into the public domain and ownership reverts to the community - just like an entry in a new routes book." would appear to be your fundamental problem, viewing a privately run website as community owned.
I look forward to your unmoderated forum though - you do mean unmoderated don't you? No censorship?

In reply to FreshSlate:

what happened next???

I need to Know!

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

This simply isn't true.

We do have a policy here which hasn't been made very public, hence Monday's QandA, but I'll flag it up here so that people are aware. We have been practicing this policy pretty much ever since UKC took on advertising, with a slight modification recently.

The UKC and UKH editorial forums are very heavily moderated in general and minor things will be removed there for a variety of reasons.

The Gear Forum has a similar level of heavy moderation due to many of the posts being linked to people paying for advertising presence on the site.

All the other forums have light moderation which at times can be inconsistent due to the volume of posts.

The Pub has even lighter moderation and is sometimes used to move other posts to in order to keep them alive.

Up until a month or so ago we actually operated a different rule for criticism of Rockfax and UKC. We were less likely to remove criticism of RF/UKC on all forums due to perceived bias. We have now changed this to offer UKC/RF the same level of protection as everyone else.

As evidence of this policy in action, there are certain posts on this thread which may have been removed had they been on a UKC editorial or Gear thread, but are still present here.

As further evidence, you can do a searches of the Forums to find many threads critical of UKC and/or Rockfax, far more than any other business/organisation. Obviously the searching is tricky but try phrases like 'bolt fund', or key brands in the message content box and see what you get if you want to try it.

I really don't want to get too more involved in this thread since I think I could end up repeating myself on Monday, however this is a good discussion I think so it seems a shame not to contribute here now.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

If these things can't be discussed during your 'open' Q & A session (very 'controlling' of you btw) then maybe now's the time for a Q & A session for those things we can't discuss on Monday i.e. whilst it's current. Somehow I doubt this will happen though and certainly not now with the imminent release of the controversial North Wales guide, which in my opinion is shrouded with Bad Karma.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: Perhaps like, for example, the BBC comments threads anything removed by moderators should leave a "ghost" post - "this comment has been removed for contravening the site's terms and rules" etc.

Some people seem to see posts being cut as a big problem, I've never had anything removed in over a decade of being a regular - so lots of people like me who have never been "censored" have no sense at all of how often this happens. The "ghost" postings would show that if nothing else.

In reply to Franco Cookson:
The problem lies in UKC's logbook feature though. This is so much information, produced by so many thousands of people, that you will never be able to compete with that. And what you have there is a very solid website that people don't want to do without.

Agreed - this is the main attraction of UKC for me. I'd like to see an effort to open up this data via a developer API as, for example, Google or the OS have done with their data. I realize this isn't trivial, nor free.

Andrew.

In reply to kevin stephens:

Well put, hopefully those that don't understand the issues Colin's raised will having read this.

In reply to andy farnell:

During your well-publicised criticism of Franco's route grading earlier in the year, it was speculated that you might have it in for him. I'd hoped that wasn't the case. I'm now wondering whether I was wrong.

Mick

In reply to Sl@te Head:

It is more trying to keep it manageable. I suspect there will be a lot of questions so I would prefer to be able to keep it focussed so that I can concentrate on issues around the forums rather than getting side-tracked which will most likely end up with me not able to answer things properly.

If it works then I'd be happy to do another one on RF and guidebook issues at a later date.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Obviously it is difficult to search for post and threads that have been removed so you can only get a very one-sided view of what is permitted and what isn't. All we are left with is observations that posts that criticise UKC are far more likely to be disappear than anything else.

We're in danger degenerating into an argument along the lines of "we're good guys honestly" vs "we're not sure we trust you so why should we believe you when you say you're good guys"?, we'll go around and around in circles like this and nothing will be resolved.

What we do know is you have removed posts and banned users that some people don't think should have been removed / banned. Some people are concerned that this amounts to censorship to protect UKC / Rockfax interests and because you operate a near monopoly on UK climbing forums there is disquiet about it and the chilling effect you exert- hence a call for action.

The are a few ways to deal with this, including, I suppose, banning everyone who doesn't tow the line and deleting all these annoying posts in which case no one will get to read this! However, I'd suggest undertaking not to moderate posts that are critical of UKC or associated commercial interests unless they contain the sort of abuse that would get you banned on a completely irrelevant thread. You could ask the BMC or other neutral body to mediate in a very small number of cases but this would have to involve a public explanation to retain confidence and for good measure you should restore the posts you've deleted and un-ban any accounts banned for these reasons.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

What's stopping you from using UKB if there is something you are desperate to discuss but keep getting zapped here? It's there, it's frequented by loads of regular keen climbers. You wont be chilled there will you?

You could even offer to write an article on whatever the issue is for one of the magazines if you feel that writing a blog op-ed it isn't enough.

In reply to Franco Cookson:

A decent forum would always need profit I think, just to pay the wages of the people maintaining it. I don't mind the advertising and actually find some useful.

I do think the Rockfax association is less then ideal, but the only real alternative is for someone to buy the site off Alan.

This isn't aimed at you Franco, just a general comment.... this attitude that the internet should 'morally' operate outside the normal commercial world persists, that stuff should appear for free, be completely independent, but also somehow moderated. Unrealistic.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

We can see pretty clearly that UKC doesn't shut down all criticism of UKC and/or Rockfax, because we can see a lot of criticism of Rockfax and UKC that hasn't been shut down. For instance, this thread and the Gogarth South thread. Lots of others you can find by searching. If they're trying to operate some sort of Stalinist suppression of dissent, they need to give their secret police a kick up the arse cos they aren't doing a very good job!

In reply to colin struthers: Hey Colin, I was going to post a couple of examples as to why the BMC would be a bad choice for hosting a truly open forum, but no one's really interested in the minutiae. I've been censored and berated by the "top brass" within the BMC for posting controversial (in their minds) opinions...even when I didn't work for them. The BMC is far too political to host a truly open forum. As we both know from our time in the organisation, the "top brass" are political animals and any sort of controversy, anything that might generate a complaint can't & won't happen.

In reply to colin struthers:

To directly answer your question, should the BMC launch an 'independant forum', I think the simple answer is no. I doubt the BMC would want to take on the expense and overhead of running such a forum. Not that a simple discussion forum is massively expensive to run. It's more the overhead of keeping software updated, the forum moderated and spam free. The BMC would have to moderate it as well, it's impossible to run a forum otherwise.

To those who have said it would be impossible to compete with UKC due to the database of routes, I think you're wrong there. There are plenty of examples where a business has gone up against a entrenched competitor and done well. If you were to build a better forums, with integration to social media, better photo sharing, nicer features, so on and so forth, then you could do quite well. However once that's become enough of a business for you not to want criticism, then we're back to square one. Also obviously there's the other channel (UKBouldering) and the other other channel, Facebook. The biggest expense would be images really. Forum databases are small generally and I doubt a routes db would be massive either, as it would just be text. Image storage will take up a lot of space and potentially processing power. I'd be willing to bet that you could run the UKC forums off quite a small server, but that once you put the images in, it becomes a lot bigger.

I've been on the internet for a reasonable while, 15+ years, spent a while on usenet, mailing lists and a number of other communities, I've also run a small forum myself, which had a few hundred active members. In my experience, UKC is quite reasonable in terms of moderation. Generally folk are pretty nice on here and I'm always surprised by those who say that it's a horrible place (go and look on 4chan, b3ta, usenet or lots of technical mailing lists...). But most people don't get subtext on the internet and they've never been on a truly combative forum/mailing list. It's impossible to keep everyone happy with moderation, you'll always have some folk who say you're being heavy handed and strict and some who regard any moderation as evil.

A couple have said that 'ghost posts' would be a good idea, so that a moderated thread doesn't just disappear. They are a good idea, it stops the formation of 'where did my thread go' threads. The post can have a reason for the moderation as well.

That UKC have let this thread stay is pretty good for them. As noted, this is a business and it is not cheap to provide the various facilities that they do provide (easily several hundered a month (but as mentioned most of that is probably image storage)). It's not perfect, but it's not as awful as many folk make out either.

In reply to Frank the Husky:

Now we're stuck in another loop one group pointing to posts that they say are critical going, "heh look you can do it" and another pointing to missing posts saying, "Nope you can't" - we could be here for some time!

The point about the BMC being a bad choice is not lost on me - for instance the enthusiasm for Olympic glory vs the criticism posted on UKC - however I do think they'd struggle (with themselves) to censor publicly posted opinions.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

You could always keep your own logbook. On Excel or some such. I'm not sure it would be that much more effort even, and it would definitely be divorced from the threat of deletion by the UKC/RockFax bods.

In reply to Frank the Husky: Do you not work there anymore Frank/Martin?

I could imagine that a BMC forum could be absolutely fine for 99% of the time (probably like UKC) until something that is difficult for/critical of the organisation itself comes up. I remember 'scandals' in the past over BMC funds - the funding of the national mountaineering centre/museum or whatever it was for example. Then some people would probably find similar issues around criticizing Rockfax books here.

What we really need is a wealthy sponsor (no needs for ads) who has absolutely no interest in climbing (doesn't care either way about how Gogarth gets a guide, probably best if s/he doesn't know where Gogarth is or even what it is) - its not looking very likely though is it?

In reply to Papillon:

People are used to getting things for 'free' on the internet. Access to Facebook, Google searches etc. It's not surprising that they forget, or may choose to ignore, that providing these services is very far from free.

In reply to Calder:

And UKC handily provide you with a .csv download of your logbook if you want it. Not one of the activity diary sadly, but there we go.

In reply to colin struthers:


My point is that any internet forum will attract a certain number of trolls, nutters or people with an axe to grind. And the owners of the forum have a legal, moral and ethical duty to ensure that anything on their site is reasonable. And they will also inevitably have commercial interests - either their own or their advertisers - to consider.

Given how much anti-Rockfax stuff is allowed on here I don't think AJ is being heavy handed. If the BMC were to host a forum I believe they would have to be far more restrictive, simply because their position as representative body would give any opinion posted on their website more gravitas. All of which would take up valuable time for BMC officers

Anyway, the BMC does have it own forum

http://community.thebmc.co.uk/Forum/

In reply to mattrm:


<off-topic>
A ridiculous statement. How can you lump together the huge, complex Usenet hierarchy with individual loony spot-fires like 4chan?
</off-topic>

I'd be disappointed if someone like the BMC were wasting time moderating a forum. Regardless of how passionate you feel about something, the content of a forum is mostly fizz, and mostly the digital equivalent of tomorrow's chip wrappings. Whatever you think of the BMC, there are other fish to fry. UKC may or may not have a near monopoly position, and we seem to have few internet people telling us how trivial it would be to setup a rival (cough), but none of us here paid an admission fee. All it's cost us is averting eyeballs from a few adverts. The Management seem pretty level-headed responding to both fair criticism and simple baiting.

In reply to SteveRi:

Just to be clear, I don't think it would be trivial at all. I do however think it's possible.

In reply to SteveRi:

And mostly UKC have deleted is pretty bland and boring - often the most interesting thing about it is that it was chosen for the delete button. That said it shouldn't be happening.

Further up mattrm says "That UKC have let this thread stay is pretty good for them" - well sort of, it is only pretty good because they have a history of deleting stuff like this - it is a bit like praising a puppy for not eating your slippers. If they didn't have a history of doing this then this thread would never exist.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566156
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=559264
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=558299
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=547313

and Rockfax

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=564306
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=559148
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552134
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=551368

and that is just the last 6 months.

In doing the moderating I see the removed threads as well which are actually just moved to a hidden forum. In those 6 months there were two removed threads which you might think didn't need to be removed. Neither had any discussion.


Well obviously not in the last 6 months then.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I'm not sure I understand your last post... I presume you are listing posts you see as demonstrating a tolerance to criticism - I get that.

The bit I'm lost with is marrying up:

"there were two removed threads which you might think didn't need to be removed" and the fact we're here because you deleted a thread and posts in the last few days

and

"Well obviously not in the last 6 months then"

because this seems to be a contradiction - maybe I'm being thick?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

In my search using UKC and Rockfax in the thread title box I found two threads which we had removed which you might think I should have let run. One was the thread that you refer to which was a 'where did it go thread' and had no replies - we have always removed 'where did it go' threads. The other was someone slagging our news coverage with a kind of 'UKC news is shit' statement and not much else.

Obviously posts are different and I can't easily find how many of those have been removed but it isn't a great number. I think my statement of our policy about posts covers most of that though. The posts we removed the other day were on a Product News item in the Gear Forum hence a place where we moderate much more strictly.


My quick search revealed to me that we haven't removed anything apart from two one-post threads in the last 6 months, and I easily found 8 threads with loads of discussion and that was only searching on thread title.

I wouldn't call that a history of removing discussion.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Do we have to wait until Monday to ask questions for the forum Q&A session? I'm quite intrigued about the moderation of the gear forum, as I didn't know it was happening and tend(ed) to trust advice given there.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

What, like a newsgroup or something? How very retro of you. ;O)
http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/ukrec/

In reply to humptydumpty:

Well I see no reason that you shouldn't trust the advice on the Gear Forum, but yes, I would prefer to keep this sort of stuff for Monday.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ok - I think (but correct me if I'm wrong) you are saying

"we haven't deleted very much that you would worry about but we have delete some stuff" and that you wouldn't call that "a history of removing discussion" .

I'd counter that although at a low level in terms of the fraction of posts deleted out of the vast number undeleted it does amount to a history of removing discussion and that this history is widely know and has a chilling effect on discussion.

This was very clear in my mind when I wrote a post you removed in the last few days and was clearly evident in the minds of many other people posting in the same thread which was also removed. I realise I'm in danger of discussing a deleted thread here against the UKC "fight club rule" but I hope you'll let that stand.

In reply to Sl@te Head:
>
>
>

No, this points to the confusion of the OP.

What has the BMC got to do with all this? That's a big question, currently unanswered but is the thrust of the OP.

We can dig out from the OP that the problem is 'How should we talk about RockFax without being censored' but the OP just obscures it.

In reply to winhill:

Ok to clarify, what I meant was that these are 'probably' the reasons behind the OP posting in the first place.

In reply to colin struthers: I help moderate an unrelated forum that is of a similar size to UKC. It is a lot of bother , and not to be underestimated as to the time involved. Gear forums reviews are an area which require a ton of modding as you need to stop biased reviews (more than you'd think), dodgy sales and a fair amount of common crime. We have much, much stricter rules on sales and still get a ton of complaints about people buying and selling

I do not think it's the BMCs job to run an alternative to UKC. Perhaps on access, ethics, and similar, but on 'which book to read', politics, humour and general banter? Cycling? Running? Forget it. And there is still the issue that they are a commercial guidebook provider as well.

Cost would also be an issue for them. Would they cover it from membership, or sponsorship? Would sponsors be allowed to call themselves 'official providor to....'? Swearing, offensive posts would all be problems for a national body forum

I think Alan does a good job moderating. You might not like it, but I don't think you're going to get much better. And almost any other site will ban a lot more people

I

In reply to TobyA:

"What's stopping you from using UKB if there is something you are desperate to discuss but keep getting zapped here?"

Maybe because UKB isnt an open soapbox to critisise UKC. If people are going to do this on UKB they need to build a profile there and be within that sites guidelines and practices.

Personally I think the issue could be solved easily:

(a) UKC stops being so defensive and protective about itself and associated interests - tbh most of what I've seen removed is so bland and would be unremarkable if it wasn't removed.

(b) Potentially controversial moderating should take place through a publicly accessible / visible mechanism (akin to the "talk" page on wikipedia) - this does not prohibit one-one discussions but does lift the veil of secrecy without jamming up the forums with tedious arguments.

(c) an independant dispute mechanism is put in place for times when the UKC and members can't agree.

(a) would mean most things never got to be a bother, (b) would give confidence that abuse wasn't taking place and (c) would be very rarely used but back up (b) and (c).

In reply to colin struthers:

Is it not simply possible to divorce peoples logbook access and activity from forum moderation and possible penalty time outs?

If someone is so out of order they are to be excluded, give them the opportunity to download their logbook in a useable format?

people seem Concerned about forum moderation and Potential consequences Regarding their logbooks.

That should Free up both users and forum moderators to be more Frank?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Given the fairly energetic criticism in the threads that people keep linking to, which is clearly still there, how much less defensive do you want them to be? Does Alan need to jump in and say "yeah, we're a bunch of bastards actually, here's a photo of Jack Geldard kicking a puppy" every time or something?

In reply to duchessofmalfi: Oh come on, you're just trolling now, why on earth should a ukc want to go to the bother of putting into place and independent dispute mechanism?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I must be confused about this then - earlier you said: "The Gear Forum has a similar level of heavy moderation due to many of the posts being linked to people paying for advertising presence on the site."

Seems like a fairly good reason not to take it as objective advice, unless I'm missing the point.


Hopefully this can be covered then - no idea if I'll be available during the official session.

By the way, thanks for a great website.

In reply to humptydumpty:

Yes, if we believe that negative comments regarding gear are being deleted, what faith do we have in positive comments being a true reflection of the quality of the gear? Five positive postings praising new gear could simply mean that 10 negative ones had been deleted due to commercial pressure from the manufacturer/advertiser.

In reply to humptydumpty:

I can understand your impression. To clarify, I am talking about heavy moderating on threads like this (preceded by PRODUCT NEWS or something like that):

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566341

and not on threads like this:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=566871

Alan

In reply to Offwidth:


Toby and Simon state in the FAQs that they have a very light moderating policy and I'm not aware of threads getting zapped because a newbie has started them? When I write "UK" in to my address bar the third thing that is in the drop down menu is the UKB "Screwed over by Wrongfax" thread which is 16 pages long, so it's not like UKB users are scared of discussing these issues!

In reply to Ramblin dave:

I saw that photo - it was a ravenous wolf and self defence clearly!!!

oh, and -> obviously.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I wasn't sure it it was a rhetorical or ironic question but in case not:

"why...should ukc ... go to the bother of an ... independent dispute mechanism?"

Errm - to solve things like this thread?

Maybe like this - the members of UKC elect 1/2 dozen members to "sit" on the dispute panel. Should a serious dispute occur like a disputed banning or post removal, and this can't be resolved amicably on a talk page, these lucky few get to see everything and if they agree it was reasonable of UKC to act then they write one sentence each why for public consumption and the ban is enforced. Otherwise the ban is lifted. I suppose the panel might also offer a half way house whereby the substantive content is left after editing. A statement explaining the adjudication is placed in the forum either way.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Why does this thread need 'solving'? It is going along just fine thanks. Lots of decent discussion, no insults, people making their point. Okay it may end up going round in circles, but that is the nature of debate isn't it?

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Ok there is a missing word:

"solve the problem that this thread was about"

In reply to duchessofmalfi: Neither rhetoric or ironic, just amused that you think a few people getting their knickers in a twist about "censorship" warrants the setting up of a jury of our peers. Anyway, we are resolving it here.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I know, that was hilarious! Talk about taking something that's not important and trying to make it like some pseudo-legal process. Seriously some people here need to get over themselves. It's climbing, and this is a commercial climbing website, neither of which are that important. It does a great job and is fun and useful to use and read. Of course a few controversial threads are going to be pulled (and quite a few less than some people would have us think) - just get over it, there's so many places you can go and ahve your say elsewhere.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



Come on Alan, stop being so nice, grow a toothbrush moustache and start behaving like a proper dictator..

(need some PS expert to do the deed...)

In reply to TobyA

"Toby and Simon state in the FAQs that they have a very light moderating policy and I'm not aware of threads getting zapped because a newbie has started them? When I write "UK" in to my address bar the third thing that is in the drop down menu is the UKB "Screwed over by Wrongfax" thread which is 16 pages long, so it's not like UKB users are scared of discussing these issues!"

That's the North Wales Limestone thread which is arguably the biggest issue with Rockfax that has ever arisen in the site history with mainly regulars posting. I stand by my impression that if its just moaning about UKC from a newbie on nothing important it's not especially welcome (at least not from what Simon has said over there). Thats not the same as it being zapped, more peer pressure, which we could do with more of over here.

In reply to Toby A:

Quote "Can you guys quit the whining about UKC and Mick Ryan. It causes Toby and I an inordinate amount of hassle and isnt very interesting." I won't link it because of what else the thread contains.

In reply to Frank the Husky:
Hi Frank. Yes I agree that there is a political dimension to how the BMC operates and I do think the organisation has been swayed by vested interests in the past. However, it is still the nearest thing we have to an independent organisation charged with promoting the interests of all climbers. By and large I think the paid and voluntary officers of the BMC subscribe to the ideal of an genuinely independent body acting for the good of its members.

Some posters have pointed out that the key issue here is not about the BMC but rather is about the openness and impartiality, or otherwise, of UKC's forum hosting. I agree.

However others have made the point that it is very difficult to develop alternatives to such a well established provider as UKC. That is why I raised the question of whether the BMC should become involved - to my mind it is the only sufficiently well resourced organisation capable of either creating or encouraging/assisting in the setting up of a properly independent climbing forum.

But that is not to say that there might not be other solutions - I think UKC is an excellent resource and I really only have problems when it seems that important discussions that might be critical of UKC are being censored.

Maybe UKC could consider ways of making their editorial role more transparent so that we all know what has been deleted and why.

Maybe UKC/Rockfax should accept that from time to time they are going to get a good slagging and that putting up with this in a public forum, rather than jumping in to censor stuff they take particular exception to, would actually enhance their reputation.

Most of us can spot stuff that is unfair or prejudicial for ourselves just as most of us can appreciate fair and reasoned criticism - do we really need Alan and his moderators to clandestinely decide which is which on our behalf ?

In reply to colin struthers:

Have you actually read this thread? If it has done anything surely it has helped dispel this myth?

I refer you to my reply at 12:27

Alan

In reply to colin struthers:


Arrghhhh - they do, as numerous posts above have pointed out at great length!

I'm genuinely interested in what "vested interests" you saw in the BMC. It's a bit of a fuzzy term that could mean a lot of things.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Yes I have read the thread.

I have also read another recent thread in which you quite clearly state that you had removed posts (presumably critical of UKC/Rockfax) which you considered to be unsubstantiated.

Nobody is doubting that over a long period of time you have accepted a great deal of material which is critical of UKC/Rockfax on this forum.

But by your own admission it is also apparent that sometimes you have not.

Whether the users of this site think that is ok is the issue.

In reply to John_Hat:
It's his sandbox, he's not charging us entry. He is giving his time freely to us to run this site and we all benefit from it (well, I certainly do).
I dont think its like that at all. It's a business. The advertisers are paying to use the sight. The owners can charge more if there's a bigger audience (more members) for the adverts.
Nobody (well almost) does anything for free.

In reply to colin struthers:

The removed threads in question are totally different to critical discussion.

In this case the removed threads and posts were started by a person who works, or worked, for V12 which is linked with Ground Up. They essentially promoted GU guides and denigrated RF guides on a PRODUCT NEWS thread which was announcing the new RF guide - Rockfax being an advertiser ion UKC. In the past we have let these run to avoid stinks like this, our new policy (which I am seriously re-thinking) is that we won't allow them anymore. We have never allowed them with all other advertisers.

I didn't really want to mention this since I have no beef with GU, and I am sure that the person was acting independently, but I think I do now need to state this to at least clarify the debate somewhat.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: So if XYZ Ltd. launches a new range of Left-Handed Widgets, someone posting on the thread saying "But they're not as good as ABC's Left Handed WidgetPlus" will get their post deleted?

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Apologies. I'll have to dig through my old stuff and find the event I was referring to (probably related to Rockfax and some sort of dispute over route data).

In reply to fedupandfat:

Well it depends. If the person was an employee of ABC then yes, I think that is fairly understandable. Unfortunately we have had instances where people have been sneaky about it and made comments under new identities to rubbish competitors. So this is why we tend to steer clear of anything like that on PRODUCT NEWS threads which are essentially advertorial on the Forums.

If, on the other hand, it was a review of XYX's widget then comments about alternatives would be welcome on the thread, unless of course we smelt a rat with a dodgy looking profile. Again, this has happened.

I think this is the sort of thing people don't realise when they ask for no censorship, or less moderating.

To give you an idea here is an approximate breakdown of removed threads on the UKC Forums:

60% people trying to fiddle the For Sale forum
30% auto-spam viagra etc.
5% accidental spam from people thinking UKC was a free forum for adverts.
3% rude, abusive, nasty stuff - not work safe etc.
1% forum moderating, 'where has it gone' type threads
1% advertising-related critical threads like we are discussing here

Those figures are based on a quick scan of the first few screens removed threads forum I can see.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Writing that Rockfax is an advertiser in UKC seems a little disingenuous, even if it's technically correct: they're part of the same company.

It's that link - that conflict of interest, perhaps - which is part of the debate here, I think.

In reply to colin struthers:I'll bite. This involvement of the BMC - exactly what do you percieve it as doing - moderating 'Off Belay' or the Culture Bunker perhaps. Or perhaps the ever terrific job of sorting out sales disputes, and he said/she said disputes. All core activities for the BMC

If this were only as simple as guidebooks and gear reviews then perhaps, but there is rather a lot more to UKC than that, and that blessing may also be it's curse.
Do you think a % of the revenue from guidebook sales, commercial revenue et al that the BMC generate should be used to pay for bandwidth that goes on religious debates, reading lists , record reviews et al. Incidentally as a commercial organisation that sells guidebooks the BMC would instantly fall into the same pitfalls , with the extra paranoia factor that they are an 'official body'.
Sites cost money, like it or not, and balancing sponsorship and censorship (as some would see it) is not easy. Sponsors should be held to account, but users are not allowed to get away with biased wibble either

In reply to Rob Parsons:

I think his point is to treat rockfax like anyother advertiser. He has said above that he has changed his policy to this rather than giving more slack to negative comments about rockfax/ukc for fear of being slated for bias.

In reply to fedupandfat:

That's certainly not my experience. I've been negative about plenty of stuff in their follow on gear article threads, I'm not aware of ever being censored.

Here for instance, where DMM ended up getting involved:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=424555

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Thanks, that's reassuring.

In reply to colin struthers:

What funny goings on, on UKC recently.

Could this be the downfall? Everything has it's time right?

Just seems like there's a lot of people getting annoyed by the owners actions.

I'm off to start my not for profit website (if I had time)

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Unlike humptydumpty, I don't find that reassuring. In fact it seems to me that it points to another problem: you are running 'advertisements' under the guise of 'news articles'.

The various codes of practice of the ASA seem to make it clear that that shouldn't be done, and that "any such material should be prominently labelled as an Advertisement'" - just as it always is in newpapers, for example.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

yes it's more product placement than product news

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


Seems fair enough to me.

Mick

In reply to xplorer:

Get a grip young man.

I tend agree with Mick that UKC's approach to moderation is about right. The forums would be a worse place without it.

I'm less sure about product advertising being packaged as "News" - if that is the case i.e. UKC gets any form of payment for the article

In reply to James B:

This system has been in place for 5 years.

Stories are clearly titled as announcements from manufacturers. There is also explanation text at the bottom, the content is also obviously marketing message.

Thread - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=566341

Product News - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=5842

Here are links to hundreds of them - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/list.php?older=6

Alan

In reply to Rob Parsons:

The various codes of practice of the ASA seem to make it clear that that shouldn't be done, and that "any such material should be prominently labelled as an Advertisement'" - just as it always is in newpapers, for example.

This is part of the footer to the linked article: -

They are not gear reviews and are provided by companies that advertise with UKClimbing Limited.

Doesn't that suffice?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


Do you find the wool often get pulled over your eyes that easily?!

In reply to TobyA:


It's not about me.

There are clear ASA guidelines in place for this sort of thing.

In reply to TobyA: Colin Struthers et al : this site has grown over 10 plus years and is quite clearly an offshoot of a commercial enterprise. If you don't like it, as said many, many times, either go to another site like UK Bloddering or set one up yourself.

In reply to MJ:


It might do, or it might not. Similar features in newspapers are always *headlined* as 'Advertisement', for example.

If you want a definitive ruling, ask the ASA.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Why don't you ask them? You're the one who appears to be confused.

In reply to Rob Parsons: Seriously, it looks like you are really scrabbling around here to find an axe to keep on grinding. UKC clearly isn't "a newspaper" and the Product News threads are very clearly indicated as different from other gear threads. It's hard to take it seriously that you think people would really be confused by this, so it would suggest that there's something else that you hold against UKC. Why not just say that?

In reply to Rob Parsons:
I agree, it would be good if such advertisements were clearly indicated. Perhaps by including something like "announcement by Petzl" at the top of the article. You know, the way they already are.

In reply to xplorer:

Seems to me like there a handful of very vocal people getting annoyed that a free service isn't run in exactly the way they'd like.

In reply to lummox:

And in the meantime don't post any critical comment on this site?

Really?

Here's the point you seem to be missing: Rockfax recently produced a new guide to N. Wales that includes the main crags that will feature in the excellent (I have seen some proofs) voluntary guidebook being prepared by local activists. These local activists have put an really quite amazing amount of effort into improving and equipping hundreds of new and existing routes. They had rather hoped that some of the enormous cost of doing so might be recouped from guidebook sales (all profits are designated to go to the bolt fund).

However, these sales, profits and hence the contribution to the bolt fund will inevitably be significantly reduced because Rockfax have decided to press ahead with their own rival for profit guidebook. Rockfax have put precious little into all the actual work that has taken place on these crags.

I, along with a large number of climbers who are active in this area, think that Rockfax's behaviour in this case is utterly shoddy.

We'd like a forum where this can be said.

We don't like the idea that some of the critical comments that have been expressed may have been deleted

That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

In reply to agp:

If only there was a thread on a forum somewhere where that topic could be done to death...

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552134

Ah.

In reply to agp:


It has been said, quite a lot and in no uncertain terms, on this forum. The thread is still there if you want to check. It's also been said in even less uncertain terms on UK Bouldering. What else do you want - someone to pay for you to put an advert in the Times or something?

In reply to agp:

Sounds terrible, all that time spent on the crags.


So you hoped to make money from the book to help fund your own climbing activities.


Most people don't give a cr@p though.


As has been said, set up your own.


Clearly it must be then.

In reply to agp: Rockfax are donating money to the bolt fund also. I don't know if this other guidebook will ever get published. You know how these things roll, it's already been pushed back a few years?

No one has ever 'made money' out of a voluntary bolt fund.

I see from your profile that you are only 19 so I will put this crass comment down to the fact that you are young and inexperienced, rather than just a selfish pillock who expects to benefit from the efforts of others but give nothing back in return.

In reply to remus:

Lol, good luck running a stock forum with as much traffic as UKC on a £10/month server, it would last about 5 seconds. Try multiplying that figure by 100 and you'd be a bit closer.

In reply to FreshSlate: I don't know a definite date but I think its pretty very close to publishing - I tried to add a recent new route and was told the proofs are pretty much finalised. Well worth hanging on to buy a copy of this guide which will be comprehensive and will give those interested in sport routes in particular a lot more info about things to go at

In reply to agp:

Wow, so bitter and NW Limestone isn't even available to buy yet. If you want to do anything to ensure you maximise 'profit' you need to get it on the shelves ASAP.

On another note, you do realise that every post I see like this makes me less and less willing to buy it, don't you?

In reply to agp:

at least he's got a profile

In reply to remus:

Do you think so? I run a couple and use many more, and UKC's in-house offering is streets ahead of them. Which is what you'd expect, as it can be changed to do whatever they want.

Or do you just mean that they have avatars and animated smileys?

In reply to Calder:


Agreed


cheers

Gaz

In reply to agp:

You come across as very angry, childish even. Clearly you are beside yourself, but this incessant ranting and raving cannot be good for your liver.

Why not get out and do some trad or some soloing; obviously fixating on vandalising pieces of rock is not promoting exuberant good spirits in you.

Anyway, nice to see you are mature enough to refrain from using abusive language in your posts.

In reply to Toreador:

The day UKC introduce smileys and avatars is the day that the BMC need to step in and launch an independent climbing forum.

In reply to Gazlynn:

Well done to you and Calder

Don't suppose you'll be contributing to any of the bolt funds either then?

Years ago the climbing world was a sort of community, and a fairly generous and co-operatve one at that

Progress eh?

In reply to agp:

So you mean its not really a rival then? It's the obvious book for the dedicated N Walesian sport climber to buy??

In reply to agp:

As has been pointed out this has been done to death. The time-line of Rockfax's involvement in North Wales Limestone guides is here for anyone interested in investigating the real state of affairs - http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=552134#x7372654

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Has it, I didn't realise. Fascinating link, BTW.

Damnit where did my eloquent yet critical post go?

In reply to agp:

Would you care to comment on the fact that the posting from Colin Struthers and agp appear to be coming from the same person posting via two separate profiles?

Alan

In reply to willexodus:


I agree that this has been discussed at length, but those two comments are way off the mark, speak for yourself, not most people.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Might take a while, as it's hard to type quickly with a sock on one hand.

In reply to colin struthers:



I think you might find that folks of the Ken Wilson era might not have been as generous to bolt funding as you might like to think.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

I was being somewhat facetious, although at the same time we aren't seeing hordes of people decrying Rockfax's behaviour as 'utterly shoddy'.

In reply to willexodus:

Then I suggest you read the UKC thread on the subject.

In reply to Paul Phillips - UKC and UKH:

I'd be interested in seeing your stats? However I guess as Alan has already said, most of that is photos? Cause he was quoting £800 just for bandwidth. I guess that's about the cost of a 100mbits 95th percentile link?

I think you could run a stock forum on a fairly small VM and have it coping with 300-400 users online simultaneously. Yeah, you'd have to do a bit of work on it first, but I reckon it'd be possible.

However the moment you get photos/videos involved, I'm sure costs would rocket.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Well compared to the number of people who read the thread, the number expressing strong anti-RF views is pretty small. So yes, most people probably don't really care very much.

In reply to davidbeynon:


ANDDDD... drum roll please... "Post of the day!" goes to David!

Lolz.

In reply to colin struthers: ultratopo.co.uk

In reply to colin struthers:

I am quite annoyed that I have actually taken seriously a thread from someone questioning our integrity and openness, and yet he has seen fit to sneakily double his voice on a thread by using a second profile.

I think we should draw this sorry thread to a close pretty soon.

Alan

In the interests of openness I have banned agp's profile.

Alan

In reply to willexodus:

You haven't counted them (because its a massive thread), so you have no idea what the numbers are, and you also seem to have concluded that only those commenting care.

Offwidth put it well, its "arguably the biggest issue with Rockfax that has ever arisen in the site history with mainly regulars posting", I'd agree with that. Changes have been made to RFs guide as a result, so Alan James seems to think people care too.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

And you have concluded that there is a large contingent of UKCer's who had strong views, but for some reason couldn't be bothered to comment. If they felt so vehemently that RF was in the wrong, then why not comment? Surely you don't really believe that the majority of climbers on UKC, let alone the majority of climbers in the country, really give two hoots who their guidebook is produced by?

In reply to colin struthers:


I might do at some point although I haven't clipped a bolt in my life.
Unfortunately I'm too much of a punter for sport

I don't pretend to know the whole story and I can understand that it's a emotive subject which people feel very strongly about but personally I feel that some on these forums have gone way over the score.

Just my looking from the outside in views.

cheers

Gaz

In reply to Jonny2vests:
In any case, as far as this thread the question isn't how widespread or valid the criticism of Rockfax is, it's whether that criticism has been suppressed by commercially motivated UKC mods.

In reply to Ramblin dave:

Yeah I realise that Dave, apologies for the thread hijack, but that kid was throwing stuff around, obviously doesn't know what's gone on and needed putting straight. I shall desist from further comment. Perhaps the thread is dead anyway though.

In reply to Jonny2vests:

Well if you want to end it that way then alright, but I don't think you put any 'kid' straight on anything.

In reply to TobyA:


The only indication that they're different is the '[Product news]' in the subject line. Otherwise, they look like a normal conversation between individuals. But we know that they're more 'heavily moderated' than are normal threads - so the possibility is that they just become unannounced advertising 'puff pieces.'

I'm not trying to derail this thread, but I hope you can see that there are similar concerns.


That is a stupid and lazy assertion.

In reply to agp:


I realise that the 'agp' profile has been locked but it is maybe right to point out that 'you' said - 'They had rather hoped that some of the enormous cost of doing so might be recouped from guidebook sales' which sure as hell suggests that money was to be drawn down from the bolt fund to pay for bolts already put in by the 'activists'. It might not be 'making money' but its 'getting money'.

Is the intention that contributions to the bolt fund will pay for bolts already placed?

In reply to mattrm:

I'm not sure I could discuss the stats on here tbh.

The VMs are looking pretty good value for money though and we'll probably go for that option on the next server upgrade. We're on a dedicated server at the mo.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


So the title line tells you they're different. And a photo in first post. And that they're posted by "UKC Gear". And you forgot to note that the "PRODUCT NEWS" is all caps. So in other words they leap off the page as something different. Seriously, are you confused by this?


Nope they really don't and it seems very few other people have the problems of confusion you're having.


Except for them being announced by a bloody great "PRODUCT NEWS" all caps banner.


What similar concerns - I say again is there something else that's upsetting you? You say there are similar concerns hence it's not really...

In reply to colin struthers: What gets my goat is when a thread gets pulled because it's going to descend into name calling even though it hadn't. We had a spate of discussions on here a while ago about homosexuality and for the most part they were good with different views being expressed. Not long later there was a thread with conversations about celebrities you fans which became which of the sex you are not attracted to do you have a crush on. That disappeared long before it became or there was any sign of it becoming troublesome.
I think it's reasonable for Alan et al to choose not to permit some stuff on the website, it's their site, that said stuff shouldn't be removed without good reason and if the good reason contravenes equality laws then it's not a good reason. You're slagging off my company might be agood enough reason.

In reply to andyathome:

I don't know the answer, but does it matter?

Firstly, they needed replacing and if someone has bought bolts with their own money and placed them off their own back, or someone has loaned the bolt fund money, or hoowever it might have worked, it seems relatively fair that the fund should pay them back as and when its able, secondly they'll need replacing again in future, and thirdly I don't think the job is by any means done yet...?

In reply to andyathome:

The profile for agp has been locked as it turns out it was a second profile for colin struthers the OP.

He can still reply on that account.

In reply to AJM:
I think it does matter as most bolts funds are for refurbishment / replacement and NOT for funding new routes. So I'm a bit confused about the idea that contributions to a bolt fund might retrospectively be taken by people to pay for bolts they have placed in the past.

I'd be fairly comfortable paying for 'maintainance' but wouldn't pay for the equipping of a new route by the prospective first ascentionist

In reply to TobyA:

Let me ask then: suppose a '[Product news]' thread is moderated to remove all negative comments about whatever it is that's being advertised. In
other words it becomes pure advertising puff - despite the appearance of a normal conversation. Would you consider that fair? A reasonable thing to do?


The similar concerns with which this thread was introduced: namely 'if that's how you want your site to operate i.e. not as an the host of a positively regarded 'open' forum for discussion but rather as a selectively censored vehicle for the promotion of your own company. None of us really knows how much you manipulate the content of the site do we?'

In reply to TobyA:

You forgot to mention that the 2nd line of every post says
"See all <company name> new and articles"
followed on the 3rd line by
"product news by <company name>"
then at the end
"Gear News and Outdoor Industry News at UKC and UKH presents climbing, walking and mountaineering equipment and stories that will be of interest to UKClimbing.com's readers. They are not gear reviews and are provided by companies that advertise with UKClimbing Limited"

Perhaps they should also include a sound clip shouting "this is an advert"?

In reply to Rob Parsons:


But it doesn't happen because I've read plenty of product news posts that, under the advertising post at the top, become discussions on the pros and cons of certain products.

Alan said that he has removed some posts which he reason to believe were for example competitors dissing a product - no problem with that. And if it was removing negative posts on only the Product News threads, no, I wouldn't be that bothered about that either. If Petzl pay to advertise their head torches that way, I'm not that bothered if negative comments were cut from those threads. Like I said, I think its obvious they're an advert because of the title.

People can and do start normal gear forum threads that moan about something breaking or not working well - they don't get zapped for doing that - if you've had petzl head torches fail on you, start a thread about it. You may well even be able to post that criticism under their paid for advert if you are sensible and fair about it: "these new head torches look interesting; does anyone know though if they have redesigned the cable housing in the battery pack though? I've had two older models fail there..." etc. I've seen similar discussion on Product News threads before.

In reply to TobyA:


I won't labour the point any further; I hope the underlying question of 'trust' (and the potential for losing it) is clear enough. As the OP had it, 'None of us really knows how much you manipulate the content of the site do we?'

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:


If this is the case, I'm deeply shocked. Questioning UKC, Rockfax etc, fair enough, if that's what people want to do. Obviously ironic when it's on here but, God knows, life has enough irony.

However there comes a point on here where criticism becomes a spear pointing at a person's integrity. It could be about new routes, style of ascent, commercialism, whatever. But the target inevitably becomes someone's integrity. And, in our tiny climbing world, mud sticks - whether it was deserved or whether it wasn't. People have to live with it.

Obviously Colin has strong feelings. Fair enough. But to have an unstated duplicate identity on this thread (if that is what he has done) is not, in my opinion fair at all.

Colin, I'm sorry but I think you really need to reply to this one.

Mick

In reply to Rob Parsons:
All you have to do is browse through some of the old Outdoor News threads, and you'll see that if any censorship does go on, it's not terribly efficient as most adverse comments are still there.

In reply to Toreador:

The point has already been made above: whether it's an 'ad' thread or any other, we can't see which posts - if any - have been removed, edited, etc. We just don't know.

Whether any such editing is 'efficient' or not is another question. But I myself don't really care about that.

In reply to Mick Ward: I have two computers - a long time ago , before I decided to submit all posts under my own name I did use AGP as a pseudonym. Because I had briefly gone back to using this old PC on which the default log in was AGP, two or three of my posts appeared under the title AGP. There was nothing at all 'sneaky' as Alan would have it. These are my comments and I'm quite happy to stand by them.

Now if I may return to the suggestion that I am in some sense trying to 'make money' out of a guide book which aims to give its profits to the bolt fund, a few facts might not go amiss

- I am not involved in the publication of the guidebook, except that I have provided the authors with information about new routes I have done
- I have never received a single penny from any bolt fund
- I have never received any free bolts from a bolt fund (although I did get a little bit of help with replacing the lower offs at the Gallery from the BMC Better Bolts Campaign)
- Over the last 15 years I have put up quite a few bolted routes, entirely at my own expense
- I estimate that I have probably spent the thick end of £1000
- This morning I put an order in for 10 sets of lower off bolts to be used on new routes I am hoping to do - total cost £173. I don't expect any help from anyone with the cost of this kit.

I am fortunate that I can afford to fund my own new routing but not everyone else can - that's why we have bolt funds.

Some good people have put a lot of free time and effort into creating a whole raft of new routes and what I'm confident will be an outstanding guide book to the Ormes and the N. Wales coast. They have, uniquely in the UK I think, pledged all the profits from this guidebook to the bolt fund.

I think it is a shame that Rockfax, although fully aware of this fact, have seen fit to undercut their efforts by producing a rival guidebook whose sole motive is profit.

I know whose book I will be buying.

In reply to colin struthers:




Colin, I'm not sure that that is why we have bolt funds. See my post above.

In reply to colin struthers:

Well if you still stand by them presumably you stood by them when you posted. So you should have signed them. Then your integrity would not have been tarnished as it has now.

Especially as the content of your alter egos posts are different to your other posts on here.

In reply to Graeme Alderson: I was dashing of a couple of replies and to be honest I couldn't be bothered to go back to the profile Colin Struthers. I don't think the content of my various posts are different - they are, as ever, forthright. You can call me opinionated if you like but spare me the sneaky accusation - that just isn't me.

In reply to colin struthers: Yet you freely admit that at one time you were sneaky and posted under 2 names, one of which is a pseudonym.

(BTW I used to post under 2 accounts, 1 was called Graeme Alderson, and one was GraemeA at home, both had profiles which were more or less the same.)

In reply to colin struthers:


Well it was earlier today; you didn't just put Colin, or CS, or Colin on another computer at the bottom as loads of people occasionally do. And you did do it a number of times.

Once, then fair enough - benefit of the doubt and all that. But three was it? And lengthy posts on a controversial subject at that? It just looks like some rapid backpedaling after getting caught.

In reply to colin struthers:

Just rude, belittling and judgemental instead??



sorry you are doing no favours to your cause Colin

In reply to Graeme Hammond: Fair comment I think - the poster had just accused me of trying to make money from a voluntary bolt fund which was both absurd and offensive.

In reply to TobyA: Ok you think I'm sneaky. I imagine I'll get over it

BTW what do you think about the actual issues?

In reply to colin struthers: No the poster had said that you (AGP) was stating that it was hoped that some of the already incurred costs for new routes would be recouped. Bolt funds never have been for new routing, you should know that. Granted there is no reason why new routers shouldn't be able to purchase bolts at reduced rates (ie the trade price that the bolt fund buys at) but bolt funds are not for new routing.

Your response was unusually rude for Colin Struthers. As someone who has had the odd joust with I did not associate the rude response with you. Hence my saying that there was a different posting style. Hence you were being sneaky.

In reply to colin struthers:

What was absurd and offensive about the bolt fund??

In reply to andyathome:

You're confusing two separate issues - new routing, and the timing of maintenance and the donations which fund the maintenance.

If you haven't been following the details, vast amounts of cash, time and bolts have been used to reequip LPT in recent years, to install a handline down to the diamond, to reequip the existing routes on the diamond, to reequip dozens of other routes in all sorts of random areas - the list goes on. This is maintenance of a high-maintenance area where said maintenance was long overdue, hence there's been a huge amount of it to do.

So if that's your only objection to the bolt fund paying, if it even does, for bolts that have already been put in then I think you've got very little to worry about.

In reply to colin struthers:
If you are truly unaware of how similar opinions, as expressed by "multiple posters", can have on opinion on threads like this, then you are obtuse. My guess is that you are aware and are therefore sneaky.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

In theory maybe, but often the people who are going out to restore existing fixed gear are also putting up new routes. In the real world bolt funded gear does sometimes end up on new routes.

Is this really such a big deal?

Does Gary Gibson really have to pay for every single bolt he places on the 4000 routes he has created which are then enjoyed by tens of thousands of other climbers.

In most European countries new routes get put up with the support of bolt funds.

Why not here?

In reply to colin struthers: Possibly because every bolt fund that I know of, including the BMC's Better Bolts campaign have said that bolt funds are for re-equipping ONLY

As you well know European bolting is often paid for by local councils etc. They are totally different from what we have here.

Your argument seems to confirm the accusation that you would like others to contribute to your new routing activity and by comparing to the Euro model you seem at odds with your previously stated objections to the commercialisation

In reply to colin struthers: Stop using false stats. Gary may have done 4000 new routes but not all of them involved bolts.

In reply to Toreador:

my suggestion is that you & TobyA stick to the day jobs ad don't work in interface design!

Q: is this always NEWS about new PRODUCTS or is it sometimes adverts for existing PRODUCTS on the market (ie not NEWS!) ?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

As anyone who knows me will confirm to you, I have never spent a penny of bolt fund money on a new route and whats more, its highly unlikely I ever will.

However, there are people putting up great new routes that we will all enjoy who would benefit from a bit of support from the wider climbing community. What's wrong with that you stupid ar*e? (had to put that in because you also accused me of being unwilling to be rude under my own name)

In reply to colin struthers: So why did you, posting under another name (in a different style) suggest that profits from the guide (which I support over RF) will be used to re-pay new routers.

There is nowt wrong with supporting people, my company does quite a lot. But be up front about it you stupid tw@t. After all you started this whole thread about not being up front about things.

In reply to colin struthers:

Ah but unless we meet them in person how will we know it isn't you masquerading under yet another profile?

In reply to colin struthers:

Hey everyone! Thanks to this thread I've just discovered UK Bouldering's website. It's miles better. Lets all go there

In reply to colin struthers:

Under you're own name you are strangely apologetic. Bolt funds are for safety. If an existing route becomes unsafe then it is quite understandable that the person restoring that route isn't out of pocket.

New routing and getting your name in a guidebook should not eat up funds that would be better used to keeping existing routes safe. If people want their name in a guidebook, then they can pay for it.

In reply to colin struthers:

No I never accused you of that, I said it was uncharacteristic of you. I think that you have been sussed as deliberately posting on this thread under 2 names. Naughty Colin.

If you start posting on UKB with this kind of double standards you will get ripped apart. Go ahead and enjoy.

In reply to colin struthers:

i've not been following this issue particularly closely till now, but on the basis of your contributions to this thread tonight, don't let the door catch your arse on the way out,

cheers
gregor

In reply to colin struthers:


I said that I thought a BMC forum would be great for 99% of the time and then run into difficulties the other 1%, just like here.

You never answered my question either as to what vested interests you saw at work swaying BMC policy? As I said above, I'm genuinely interested.

In reply to colin struthers:


Obviously you should have made it clear that you were AGP. But, if it was the heat of the moment (in a very heated thread), then fair enough.

Although I've never met you, I've never imagined you as an underhand person.

Mick

In reply to colin struthers: I became aware of the Notrth wales limestone/Rockfax guidebook issue through this site, and expressed mildy critical opinions towards Rockfax on this site. I also saw much more critical posts of Rockfax on this site.

People who are banned or have their posts deleted can always post elsewhere and it will be referred here... this site will still help to propagate that persons view.

I really don't think there is a problem ( as in your OP).

Regarding gear reviews.... that's the nature of the beast. Where the internet has made a difference to consumers is user feedback sites, which realistically this site can't do. So yeah, i'd say there is room for a site that did that.

In reply to lithos:
my day job involves interface design
but it's aimed at people who can read, apparently not the case here.

In reply to colin struthers:

Do you have evidence of this alleged theft? Or are you making it up?