UKC

Alan James has a look at developments across the UKClimbing, UKHillwalking and Rockfax over the last 12 months. We also publish some figures from our readership survey carried out in May and June.

Read more

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Despite agreeing with those votes on the excellent usability and impressive content on the logbooks, news and articles, and glad to see the site traffic growth, I remain concerned about the quality and volume of forum posts where things seem to me static (top 40 contributer reported post numbers seem to have flat-lined for years) ; when, given clear improvements on everything else worth commenting on the site, they surely should be improving. There has to be some reasons for this and some experiments worth trying to see if they help improve posting volume (especially in the climbing forums).

Irrespective, thanks again for all the hard work which provides the site users with such a useful and enjoyable virtual playground and hoping for a equally happy 2017.

In reply to Offwidth:


The site demographics have got to be of concern to advertisers, though. 87% male? Shall be interested to see how this develops over 2017.

In reply to Offwidth:

As many have said, I believe the Dislike button (or was that in 2015?) has been a retrogressive innovation, and is a definite deterrent to discussion.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Maybe they should be agree/disagree rather than like/dislike.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I cherish every Dislike!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


The real deterrent to discussion is the ignominy of being featured in the Top 40 Posters list.

In reply to Offwidth:


Never mind increasing the volume, we could do with increasing thee percentage and quality of genuine climbing posts.

ISTM that some of the sites with lower traffic also have a lot less off topic noise.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


If people are that sensitive they will probably find another reason to deter them from discussion.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'd like to see the same 6 emoji's you get on Facebook and also the ability to see the Users who have "Liked" etc

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

I enjoyed the overview, despite being on the periphery as a guidebook writer I don't have too much feel for the scale and complexity of the whole operation.

UKC/UKH/RF have prospered because of the vision and dedication of the team behind it and especially Alan James at the helm. He has always had an uncanny ability to surround himself with people who are great at what they do and who just get on with doing it.

The success is well deserved,

Chris

In reply to timjones:



I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence, but a glance at SuperTopo blows the second one right out of the water!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Spoken like someone whose contributions are regularly disliked.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

This is a great site, many thanks to all those who work on this place as it's the go to for all things climbing. I was shocked to see Outdoors Magic in the traffic list as that place is a spam filled ad dump with very little of value in its forums.

In reply to Valkyrie1968:

Which they are not, actually.

I'm simply interested by the idea of what might happen if the Dislike button was removed. The discussion forums might just regain some momentum. I don't know.

In reply to Offwidth:
TBH hasn't every generic discussion topic under the sun been done to death here?

Plenty of us have been around here for 20+ years, so unless we are discussing something new; whether guidebooks, gear, newsworthy ascents (or incidents) or other current issues, things are probably going to feel rather stale.

That said, I did make a token effort this week but you haven't replied to my Xmas present thread yet

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:


Agree. I also think that good climbing discussion suffers on ukc (1) because there are actually too many other threads that push the interesting ones down the list before many of the slightly less regular users might see them, (2) because the ratio of uninformed/unknowledgeable posters to informed/knowledgeable is very high. For these reasons I'll usually go to the other channel if I want some climbing advice or detaiked discussion.
Where ukc is really good is in its diversity of users (hence it is great for discussions on non climbing topics) and the technical excellence and usability of the website.

A suggestion: has there been much thought to trying to get 'experts' to contribute more to certain climbing discussions on the forums to stimulate intelligent discussion? There are many such people who are very occasional users, but few regular posters. Or maybe having a topic of the week or something, to try to stimulate discussion on that specific for a week? These could be linked to articles in some way.

In reply to Chris Craggs:



Can I second that please Chris? and for those who arrived late on the scene Alan created the legendary Pokettz cartoons that appeared in (I think) On The Edge magazine. Absolute classics the lot of them, maybe Mr James could kindly upload to give us oldsters another retro-laugh????
Thanks for the site Alan & team.
AP.

In reply to jon:


My impression was that Supertopo had more on topic posts?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Absolutely. Anybody who feels strongly enough to use the dislike button shouldn't be too lazy to say why.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I think that's a misunderstanding of it's use, at least by many. For me and certainly many others (but obviously not all) the dislike button is a way to express my disagreement without having to spend 10 minutes writing a response to an often-complex topic. If I feel very strongly I'll write a post, if not I might just use the button. If you were to say I couldn't use the button without explaining why, that would completely negate its point.

It's certainly not intended in a derogatory way to the poster or to be taken personally in any way - it relates purely to my reaction to that post. This is also how I use it on, for example, Facebook.

In reply to AP Melbourne:


http://www.rockfax.com/general/pokketz/

In reply to Si dH:

The trouble is that it is used for too many reasons and it is often not clear which. And it is often not at all clear which part of a post is being disagree with it disliked (I got one such dislike for a post in the Death thread yesterday). I have decided never to use the Dislike button, however tempting, and to actually reply if I feel strongly enough; if everyone else did likewise I believe the quality of discussion would be improved.

In reply to timjones:


When I posted that yesterday, I counted the OT posts on the front page. There were 14 OT out of 30. Right now I counted 15.

In reply to jon:


I suspect that there are times when UKC struggles to maintain a 50:50 split ;(

Take a look at Mountain Project for a good example of a climbing forum.

In reply to Robert Durran:


<desperately fighting the urge to click dislike just because I can...>

TBH I think the likes and dislikes have made absolutely no impact on my UKCing which had started well over a decade before they had come along. Most of the time I never go back and look at them as they are hidden by the "previous replies" function.

In reply to timjones:

Do you use the "select forums" option in your profile Tim? I turned off down the pub years ago, although chose to keep off belay on. But otherwise, it's just climbing (with a bit of biking and skiing - which to me and most posters here is ski mountaineering anyway).

In reply to timjones:


Yes, I think it's great for route/area info, but to me it never seems to have much 'life'. But you're right, its climbing content is high. Which makes me wonder if a climbing site CAN have a life without OT?

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Thanks for that Chris, and to Andy P - much appreciated.

Alan

In reply to Robert Durran:


If everyone was exactly the same life would either be improved or very boring indeed

In reply to jon:


Surely life is what happens away from the internet

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


As moderators we certainly appreciate the Like/Dislike buttons. They make it much easier for us to moderate and our impression is that they contribute to keeping threads on track by isolating rogue and disruptive contributions. They allow people who don't want to actively post to express an opinion. There are cases where they can seem at odds with decency and common sense, however I think these are rare.

The survey obviously showed that most people are happy with them although it would probably have been better to have added a question to allow us to filter the responses based on how involved people are with the forums. A vote for no change from someone who never visits the forums is obviously not as significant as one from someone who is on there every day. I'll make a note to add this to future surveys.

For the moment we won't be getting rid of them or changing them.

Alan

In reply to The Ex-Engineer:

How can you 'do things to death' when every year we have climbing news, features, new kit, books, and many new people. As Si dH points out, UKB make a good fist of climbing discussions on a much smaller overall volume and user base (their non climbing threads are usually better too, but on the negative side they are sadly even more male than UKC).

On dislikes: they are to me like virtual junk food in that they seemingly satisfy the children, the ill informed and the plain stupid but are bad in the end in allowing low level nastiness and non-information we should all rather see discouraged for the health of the site. There is no way we can have the faintest idea exactly why they were actually used (may just be a slipped finger) unless someone explains why (in which case why not just say so). They are one experiment I'd dearly like reversed, as another experiment.

In reply to Offwidth:


My thoughts on this are that we have actually maintained a strong forum in the face of some serious opposition and the fact that the views are steadily up, even if the actual number of threads are down to me is a good thing. It would be nice to encourage some of the occasional visitors to post a bit more, but many people carry out this type of chat on Facebook now where they are discussing with a more familiar social group.

I like the suggestion to get some have a more pro-active approach at climbing discussion and debate and we will think about ways of doing this. Maybe a topic of the week in conjunction with a vote. We could even get guests in to introduce and take part. Certainly something worth considering.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

This is the third thread currently running on a climbing forum that the forum is dying.

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/sp-truly-is-dead-t81562.html
http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=1...

The answer is Facebook.

In reply to Damo:


Facebook isn't the answer; it's the problem!

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

We have argued this before and I still think a static forum posting volume with maybe even a decline in the climbing side, when viewed alongside the rest of your success, is not good news and facebook is an unhelpful excuse (everyone has the same competition)... I think its well worth trying things to improve the situation as long as it doesn't use up too much time and you have a loyal user base whom I'm sure will help.

In reply to timjones:

The reason why most forums ban political posts. I used to own stakes in a forum and after we banned political topics the over all post count was down but the posts were a lot more topic related. All depends weather you care more about content or keeping your advertisers happy. Fine line sometimes.

For what it's worth.. The political posts spoil this website into a childish squabbling match most of the time.


Also for what its worth.. The forum I had shares in turned out to be a pile of shite so shat do I know

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:



Absolute pleasure Alan. Fact that I ain't climbed a rock since 5th May '92 but you do have a fantastic Pub and Off Belay option for us non-climbers.
Unless its me being daft again the ability to underline, bolden or italicise when posting would be handy.
You konw, smelling. Punktuation and grandma etc.

In reply to elliott92:



I'm assuming that's a typo but well done anyway.

In reply to AP Melbourne:


underline
bold
italic

You can do it, but it is a bit of a faff. You need the tags < b > and < / b > (without spaces) on either side, or i or u

In reply to timjones:
One thing I always really liked about climbing is apres climb situations: the majority of people involved in climbing usually being robust enough to discuss other aspects of life (even when slightly or very inebriated) without normally getting into flaming rows.... often directed by the wicked use of humour on any trace of pomposity, but still usually with surprisingly gentle intent. What unites us is stronger than the things that divide. UKC when it started had that 'feel' about it and UKB still does. These days it seems to me the UKC site is a refuge for a few too many of the 'hot-headed humourless reactors' who couldn't deal with real pub humour so would soon opt out. They are a small minority but I think they are a real pain here (and worse and more common still on many newspaper forums). It would be no loss for me to see them stop posting here. UKB does this with a clear moderation policy, peer pressure, karma (which is really quite clever) and the labels like 'forum heros'. It seems to me, the trick is to use such tools that help, without them becoming bullying and thats down to sensible moderation. I really think UKC would gain from the extra help on its clear moderation policy that the UKB tools and Im sure other such tools provide; and from a few more more climbing related threads (that's mainly down to us, the site users, being more proactive).

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I suspect the dislike button has suppressed the number of posts on forums, and probably deterred some older posters.
I think some actions to encourage interesting topics and debate would be welcome, my suggestions are:

The option, when you start a new topic whether to allow like and dislike, a bit like allowing voting on your photographs.

On a Sunday evening someone from UKC could host a sort of UKC forum version of radio 5 lives 606 programme, instead of Rob Savage you get Rob Greenwood!

In reply to Offwidth:


That's all very well, and I'd agree, but it seems rather odd to be crying out for more vibrant climbing discussion on the same afternoon that you've told someone not to go to a crag that they were asking for information about based on bollocky notions of dampness and what walkers think.

Also, in reply to the people whining about the dislike button:

If you post something that's shit, it's an easy way for the rest of us to make that clear. We don't owe you an explanation for why we've disliked it, any more than you owe us an apology for posting drivel in the first place. The voting buttons are a simple way of gauging the quality of contributions in threads, without the need for inane shit along the lines of '+1' and 'thirded', 'fourthed', and so on.
My favourite thing about them is that, unlike the tediously drawn-out arguments that rage from time to time on UKC, derailing threads and destroying any semblance of interesting climbing-related content, the like/dislike feature clearly and inarguably quantifies the shit-ness of a post against the metric of public opinion - something that even the most doggedly contrary curmudgeons on here can't argue with (although they can, clearly, whine about them).

In reply to Valkyrie1968:


Excellent. This is actually exactly what I feel about the like/dislike option but I have been slightly too afraid to put it in such blunt terms. Hence this post is a double 'like'.

Alan

In reply to Martin Haworth:


We have done 'live on the forums' pieces in the past, and they have been good and something we should certainly do more of. However they are quite time consuming for the person in Robbie Savage's chair.

I quite like the idea of introducing a Monday debate thread with a question and running it for a few days. We could include a blind vote at the base of the thread with results only revealed at the end of the week.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
I have to disagree with you on this. Having this option just gives more voice to people who are inclined to be negative and dislike posts, it's a bit like shouting people down in a verbal argument. I like the like button but dislike the dislike button, it discourages debate( in my opinion).

In reply to Martin Haworth:

You could have just clicked Dislike to his post and saved yourself the bother of replying in detail

In reply to Martin Haworth:


If that was the case then I would expect there to be more 'dislikes'. In fact 'likes' vastly outnumber 'dislikes'.

The only figures I have indicate that the forum traffic, post number etc. has remained largely unchanged since we introduced like/dislike. I don't think it has had any impact at all on traffic, but I do think it has stopped some run-away trolls in their tracks as their posts are shown up for the offensive rubbish that they actually are.

There are very few cases where a posts gets a significant number of dislikes for no apparent reason. There are plenty of occasions where a post gets a strange one or two dislikes for no apparent reason, but these are usually outnumbered by the likes. The mistake is to actually take these dislikes seriously.

Alan

In reply to Valkyrie1968:
The opinion about the woolpacks isn't just mine its pretty similar accross the BMC peak access team who know it. The rock in climbing terms is well below par for peak grit, is a lot more delicate than usual and the condtions currently far from ideal. The opinions of walkers are also important (some of whom also climb).

I'm happy for you to have a different opinion and be faced with robust discussion but if you blather on agressively in the face of reasonablly clear information to the contrary, yes I'll label you with the group I'd like to see the back of.

As a different example if you understood information and statistics better you would realise what complete rot you are talking about dislikes. It clearly make you feel better but it rarely means anything worthwhile here on UKC posts, except maybe in the rare situations when people who actively criticise dislikes get heavily disliked by those in disagreement or as a joke (the proportion of which remains unclear). Liking dislikes reminds me of people who believe in horoscopes and other such nonsense that has no evidential justification.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Where is your evidence of such Alan... I'd trust any proper analysis made even if done in private to protect the delicate flowers. It seems to me runaway trolls would enjoy stirring... clearly attributed reasoned karma from respected level headed climbers never stopped Sloper on UKB for instance. Most people here are good at heart (even the ignorant ones who don't understand the ideas of statistical significance) so I'd naturally expect likes to outnumber dislkes. The vast majority on the threads seem to me to be likely tit for tat noise (something explicitly banned on UKB karma) and it's rare in my view that any message of any type can be had, whereas a simple explanation of why something is wrong can be as clear as mud (and challenged where it is not).

In contrast to dislikes, negative karma has attribution and reasoning... proper information... and as counted en masse the trolls are clear. Sloper as a right wing cartoon character headed the UKB disliked posts charts, on your site we don't know but we probably have Lemming.. a guy with broadly good intent, and prolific traffic. The main 'smiters' over there are also identified (and can look a bit mean), here I suspect they are more like those who would end up with mass negative karma on UKB and may well be anonymous internet bullies.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


You are correct. 2501 likes to 902 dislikes as of today.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

To show we can all 'pick and play' to suit our arguments here is the most disliked recent post I can find in a quick scan (at 17) . I doubt you think this is from a clear and regular site troll:

"Is the Queen really a stupid racist?

Well, she married one."

In reply to Offwidth:

Just because posts get better doesn't mean people have more time to read and comment on them, which is the only way I can see the Top 40 poster's post counts being driven up.

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

Reading through these comments it has become apparent that the Dislike function is actually an establishment tool to stifle critical comment through mob rule. The powers that be know that most people crave public approval and so will avoid posting anti-establishment opinion.

Wow!

(Fire away I'll cherish them all

In reply to Martin Haworth:

Eh? What is 'negative'? The implication in that is that posts should only be 'positive'. I've said for years now - this is a forum, not a fan club.

What if the post really is rubbish? What if the information is wrong? I don't see the problem with criticising posts or people who have either posted something (verifiably, factually) wrong, dishonest, (undoubtedly) offensive or misleading.

it's a bit like shouting people down in a verbal argument.

It's nothing like that at all.

In reply to Damo:

it's a bit like shouting people down in a verbal argument.


It is very much mob rule though. This is why UKC has chosen to use Dislike rather than Disagree (coz it appeals to the emotions) and make the action anonymous (people only feel secure when they're hidden within the mob). Text-book example.

In reply to Damo:


Or offensive? Or an alternative opinion? You have put your finger on precisely why the dislike button is so awful; it is an I instrument so blunt, yet easy to use carelessly, that a lot of the time it is not at all clear what is meant by it (and therefore to respond appropriately to).


Of course not, so do so by actually saying what you are criticising.



It is precisely like that; reducing debate to loutish yaboo.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think you're taking this way too seriously, Robert.


Yazoo? The whining 80s big hair synth band? NOW I'm offended!!!

In reply to nb:


An interesting point. Though I felt it's possibly worse without like/dislike. That is when a lot of people all disagree with one person in posts, making it very hard for that individual to reply to them all. But I think the 'mob rule' thing is definitely an issue particularly on religious topics (or maybe every religious person has left by now) and politics.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree there is definite ambiguity in like/dislike. It's possible to disagree with post but still appreciate it for the way it's written or just for a different perspective. Maybe more buttons would be useful - agree/disagree? Or perhaps that would just make it too complicated? I think much of the time you can judge by the context what the likes or dislikes are about. But certainly that's not always the case.

I value the 'dislike' option for rude posts. Such posts damage forum participation. I've spoken to several people who don't post anymore because of rude and aggressive replies. And I'd hazard a guess that's at least part of the reason there are so few posts by women too.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:



I pretty much dislike all your posts imo old fashioned armchair views
Just my opinion however, since you are entitled to them

In reply to UKC/UKH News:

It would be interesting to know the percentage of mobile users and how that has changed over the years. Generally now I believe more people access the internet via mobile devices than on regular computers.

That could probably explain a lot of things, like lack of forum participation for instance. It's slow and clumsy posting from a mobile device as compared to a desktop PC.

I also think the like/dislike button is much more important for mobile users, allowing them to take part in a small way without having to waste time typing.

In reply to stp:


Yes, that's a good point. I find UKC too hard to navigate on my iPhone, so usually don't.


Partly, but the answer is still Facebook - like it or not. The internet is a visual medium, image-heavy, minimal use of text, more bullet points, listicles, links rather than explanations and turbocharged by share-ability. Laying out a reply or argument in paragraphs of sentences is 1990s, at best.

With no in-post image placement and minimal interactivity or sharing, UKC is very much a throwback in digital terms, especially the Forums. I'm OK with how it is, though I would like more expedition reports and alpine talk (both of which require multiple images, usually) but I think anyone who thinks it will grow as a forum - in an overall sense, not in the sense of actual UKC Forums - is dreaming.

Facebook just has too many specific climbing groups, so many images and such powerful shareability. A climbing site needs something more and different to compete/survive. For that reason, I liked UKC's attempts at different formats for articles like the click/scroll-through multipage, big-image things they've done. Which so many seemed to complain about.


+1

The other great irony I see in people bemoaning the decline of forum participation, is that whenever a topic got heated or long, there were almost always multiple people chiming in with some version of "why do you care?" "let it go", "just go climbing", or some other derision or disdain for the people actuallydiscussing the topic, as if it was silly or uncool to do so. My reply to such overt hypocrisy was always "if you don't care, don't post" but I still see it happen.

In reply to Damo:


I have only got a smart phone relatively recently and find UKC forums fine on it (wouldn't have posted anything in the last couple of weeks without it!). Obviously video and photos are rubbish though.


I disagree. Facebook is just too sprawling and full of trivia to replace what UKC does well; fine for sharing photos and maybe finding partners, but rubbish for the kind of informed discussion which is UKC at its best - if the forums are suffering, it is not that Facebook does it better, but that it is a lazy distraction.


I couldn't agree more.

In reply to Damo:

Really interesting points.


I definitely don't like Facebook for about 100 different reasons so I wonder how many other active forum users are similar? That is they spend their time here not there.

Seems a great shame that a giant, faceless, US corporation can fracture something as small and friendly as the UK climbing community.



I'm definitely 1990s in that case. I don't like shallow replies which often seem to me more about someone making their presence felt (look at me) rather than a sincere perspective on something. I'm sure a lot of other people must feel the same way.



Yeah I would have thought that was an obvious step forward, particularly embedding stuff from elsewhere. It wouldn't even up the bandwidth, and easy to implement. Not sure what the arguments against are.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't know how or to what extent you use Facebook, Robert, but I think you're wildly wrong. Like most things on Facebook, you need to know how to use it, where to go, where to stay away from and who to interact with - and who to Block, Unfollow or ignore. It's incredibly powerful, but also can be quite specific and personal in a way that UKC Forums are not.

I've had very long, informative, sometimes (very) heated climbing discussions on Facebook which leave UKC for dead, sorry to say. It's also less anonymous (rarely anonymous at all, really) so easier to get some idea of the bona fides of the person you're arguing with. Theoretically an argument should stand on its own merits on the page, not on the poster, but we all know that's not really true most of the time.

In the same vein, quite a few of the discussions I get into involve editors, writers and others actually doing things in other parts of the climbing media, so not only can community concern or opinion, and reactions, be gauged before print, but material and writers are often now sourced from Facebook discussions, because it's a proven forum and proves topicality. I doubt this has happened much from UKC Forum threads, and taking away the Like-Dislike button would remove a useful indicator of reader reaction.

In reply to:

Over lunch... another quick survey of likely reasons for dislikes (all my recent posts... I turn the pub off... at least 3 dislikes to count). I guess all the trolls are too stuffed to make it out from under the bridge as surely it can't be that they are mainly so misused:

Plain dumb (the opposite of troll posts and the disliked deserved an explanation):

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655915&v=1
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655767
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655761&v=1
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655804
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655875 ... so bad for UKC it makes me cringe
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655880
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655796

Just differing political viewpoints:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655840
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655580
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655795
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655874
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655831

Possible contenders (eg from the naive, through idiotic to likely troll):

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=654675&v=1 ... naive OP maybe a bit of a snotty response (but its not on a newbie thread) hardly pure evil... dislikes just unhelpful in my view.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655753... the zimp... dislikes hardly needed and maybe a bit bullying

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655920 mildy silly but used a smiley to indicate it was a joke (28 dislikes !! pure evil)

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=652597 Naive/silly with rather OTT responses.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655765 Very mildy silly to silly, again dislikes look OTT.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655468 Bolt comments from a local guidebook activist (and a sillyish response). The UKC equivalent of a political difference?!

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655485 A mix (mainly OTT looking especially the frist joke) ... police stops maybe approach politics?

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655693 Probably fantasist... otherwise the Mark Eddy dislikes would have made the first block above.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655706&v=1 The zimp

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655863 mildly silly joke

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=655168 the zimp but various others (including Jim Titt ! ) that make UKC look daft.

Even discounting the first two sections the average of these more explainable responses look childish and mildly nasty and sometimes daft rather than solid sensibly disapproving.

In reply to:

Oh and Sloper's UKB Karma stats to show how we could do 'it' better (if we have to at all... I don't use negative karma either):

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php?action=ownkarma;u=438

In reply to :

Thanks for adding to the post truths dislikes btw.... albeit this thread should go to a climbing politics group (like bolt threads).

In reply to Offwidth:

My general observation has always been that the people complaining about the dislike feature are the ones whose posts regularly get disliked; it's kind of like how the people who loudly complain about Valentine's Day are generally the ones who have recently been, or are regularly, rejected by the object(s) of their affection.

In reply to Valkyrie1968:

A particularly sad ad hominen attack on those who use arguments and information to disagree with you...

In reply to Valkyrie1968:


Certainly not generally true of me. I am more often exasperated by the dislikes other peoples' posts get.

In reply to Damo:


You mean there is more to Facebook than wading through endless shit cat videos to find the odd mildly interesting thing a so called "friend" has been up to?


Evidently. I am clearly clueless!

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well I see you're partial to a Downfall/Brexit meme!

If a 'Friend' is regularly posting crap you don't want, just go to their page and click on 'Unfollow' and they will disappear from your feed.