/ old "feedback" in log books
Is there a way to suppress old "feedback" in logs? - stuff like this keeps spamming up log pages:
Swig15 Jul, 2006Sorry, that should read "you're" not "your". βeta?
Swig15 Jul, 2006If your me you put some gear in and then remove it so you can make upward progress. The rope drag was a nightmare. The best bits of the route are in the lower half. βeta?
GrahamD24 Apr, 2006A classic dilema ! do you stuff gear in the high slot in the groove or do you keep it free for your fingers ? βeta?
Andy Hobson31 Oct, 2005A good route; HVS 5b seems spot on. The traverse is ok once you commit and the move up into the groove requires a bit of thhought as well as good use of your feet. More awkward than hard. 2 stars as it's a bit too escapable higher up and seemed a bit scrappy after the groove.
I guess this was imported from old logs and mistranslated from notes to "feedback".
Paul - could you just remove all feedback from (say) before 2010 as a way to fix? this pops up everywhere and is really annoying.
Is there any point in the feedback bit anyway? Surely if a guidebook author or anyone else is that interested in reading things prior to their ascent they'll look at the logs.
I think it is there to report things like dodgy bolts or route changing rock fall - these are old log entries that got put in the wrong place - I guess this should really go reporter->moderator->updated route description but that is probably a bit slow and haphazard.
> I think it is there to report things like dodgy bolts or route changing rock fall
That makes sense. But it does seem to sometimes get used by folk simply saying the grade is wrong!
The majority of the 'feedback' that I see added more recently doesn't seem to be actual feedback either. I think the feedback function needs some sort of moderation to weed out the stuff that should just have been written in the logbook entry. That or there needs to be clearer published guidelines about what constitutes feedback.
> these are old log entries that got put in the wrong place
They're logbook entries that were made on the Rockfax site prior to UKC but they're not an accidental inclusion. When the feedback feature was announced, Alan said that the feedback was being populated with those old entries. He thinks they're more useful than recent UKC logs. I have no idea why! As far as I can see, their useful to useless ratio is exactly the same as UKC but some of the useful info is ten years out of date.
Exactly - 13 year old grammar corrections spamming up the log books. There's a button to turn off "beta" but, unfortunately, no button to turn off or delete the old bollocks which is a shame.
It’s quite easy to put your own notes in the feedback box by mistake. I’ve done it myself a few times and gone back to remove it once I’ve realised. No one needs to read ‘too hot but managed to climb it anyway...’ in the feedback box
That said, I think the principal of the feedback field is really good: rockfall, dodgy bolts, descent beta etc all useful.
> Is there any point in the feedback bit anyway? Surely if a guidebook author or anyone else is that interested in reading things prior to their ascent they'll look at the logs.
Feedback is useful for people who want to keep their logbook private but who might occasionally want to add a public comment. As others have said, things like rockfall, nesting birds and general condition of the route are all things that could usefully go in the feedback section.
Perhaps the answer is to let crag moderators delete feedback that is no longer relevant?
I get that not all moderators are very active so the feedback box could be useful for immediate advice about rockfall, dodgy gear, birds etc. However, some of this may become redundant, i.e. once the route description/grade has been updated, gear replaced, or birds fledged. It would also mean that moderators could clean up the irrelevant comments (though whether they could be bothered to do this thoroughly for all their crags / routes is doubtful).
I've no problem with the principle of some kind of route reporting mechanism but what I do have a problem with is all the old rubbish from 10+ years ago that was imported into the wrong place. Basically this should all be deleted and a report or hide button should exist for the new stuff. Stuff that is report should hide unless the moderator overrides within a few days otherwise.
"Watch out for the tawny owl", is apt feed back for a few weeks but not from 5 years ago
"Crux hold broke in 2015 and the grade is harder, poss E2 now", is apt until the next guide book
"Route fell down with overhanging bastion in 2018", is useful 'til the moderator fixes the crag/route description
"Phew, hot and pumpy and nearly dropped a cam" is never welcome.
> As others have said, things like rockfall, nesting birds and general condition of the route are all things that could usefully go in the feedback section.
It's still not necessary though. People could just as easily PM the crag moderator with that information. They could then highlight this important information at the start of the route description.
my heart bleeds for you lot.
not perfect but a great improvement on checking both sites.
keep it up ukc, thanks for a great tool that is unrivalled in the rest of the world.
This week's Friday Night Video takes us to Bohuslän in south-west Sweden. Hazel Findlay and climbing partner Maddy Cope had heard about the perfect granite cracks in the area for years and recently made the trip over. Hazel manages to find...