UKC

I've noticed a growing trend of highly subjective comments appearing in Feedback. Shouldn't Feedback be for reports of problems with the route: physical changes, loose blocks, access problems? I'd prefer people didn't clutter it up with a load of guff which belongs in the personal Notes.

We have noticed this starting to become a bit more prevalent as the feedback system gains more use although, on the whole, the problem is very much the other way round. ie. people's personal comments contain excellent and valuable route feedback that gets lost in a huge list of ascent comments.

Most of the comments pre-2010 were imported from the old Rockfax route database and that made no differentiation between personal and feedback comments. We made this mass import to give the feedback comments a bit of a content boost when we introduced the feedback comments system. It is quite possible that these early comments could be as you state and I would just ignore those.

As for more recent ones - I am not sure what we can do beyond the current system. It has to be easy to add comments and the various fields are pretty clear about what they are for when you add them. 

We have just discussed this issue and we are considering some options to enable deletion of duff or out-of-date feedback.

Alan

i've always wanted a personal BETA section, i am happy to share general info but if i wanted to record detailed info eg what gear for example for a subsequent ascent id want that private. It could be a small field varchar(128) type

cheers

My personal view is that Feedback enables people to share info about a route and that more opportunities to share info about routes are generally appreciated - especially as comments on a route in your logbook can't be shared without making your logbook public (i.e. all the data you store there, which you might not want to share publically).

Also: if I write about a route in Feedback, I usually tag it as beta. Note that you can turn beta off.

If there is a choice between erring on the side of having more info in the logbooks or having  info, I'd err on the side of more being better. Because, after all, isn't this a site for sharing information about climbing? And people who don't want to read info about climbing/routes can always... not do so?

Also, the route that seems to have sparked this is Cadillac (VS 4c), which has three short comments on it. Reading your comment versus those, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that what you're really annoyed about is people calling "sandbag" on routes in opposition to your desire that they remain sandbags... Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that's the way it looks.

For some people, literally the only reason they engage with the logbook database is so that they can spot the sandbags ahead of time and preferably avoid them!

Thanks for your posts.

I'm not really annoyed, just had some thoughts following logging Cadillac which I thought might engender a useful/interesting discussion.

I don't want sandbags to remain sandbags; I'm all for upgrading routes where necessary to fit a more modern and consistent calibration. Cadillac is not a sandbag. It's a VS.

... this demonstrates very clearly the problem I posted about. You seem to have given disproportionate weight to the comments in Feedback, and assumed that the reality of the matter is that the route is a sandbag. I happen to know that it's not, but don't take my word for it: the route has had a large number of logged ascents. Look at the grade voting and you get a different story: the consensus is strongly for VS (albeit upper end).

Fair dos. Personally, I can never be completely sure what grade things are...! Usually, the more I think about it, the more unsure I am.

I have to agree with bpmclimb on this.

It's not a sandbag at all, it's a really good solid VS and the voting agrees with this. It's really not helpful when people leave comments like that in the feedback section, they should save it for their own logbook and vote on it.

Here's an example of a VS sandbag: Easy Pickings (VS 4b) Note that no one has entered any feedback, but it's clear from the public logbooks and the votes. I just wish I'd checked UKC before I got on it!

I don't know that route, as I'm at the other end of the country. But,  it's not really about the route, it's about the principle of whether to share more or less information about a route. Of course some of that information will be wrong; one of the things you have to do, when reading the logs, is take what is written with a pinch of salt.

Votes are not particularly good indicators of the consensus grade, because a) historically, you got far more limited options; b) people tend to vote for the grade, rather than against the grade, so there is a conservative tendency within the voting.

The substantive issue is, should people be able to write whatever info they want in the Feedback section or not. Personally, I'm for more sharing of information. For those who decide not to share their logbooks, the Feedback section is the only way to share info other than starting a thread. With regard to comments that are moaning unjustifiably about the grade, I don't see it as being a problem for this to be in the Feedback than in the log notes. I don't think "I find it annoying because I don't agree with it" is a very sound argument for deleting this information.

Presumably it would be possible to add a "Not up-to-date feedback" flag much like the "beta" flag? Of course it would be open to abuse but then what feature isn't?

It might help prevent the below sort of issue, why is that one comment worthy of elevation above all the other hundreds?

Fishers Folly (VS 4c)

Well it isn't elevated, it is submitted using a separate field specifically designed for useful general feedback. In this case it was presumably submitted by mistake to the general feedback, and I can delete it (although I won't just yet to illustrate the point).

Anyone can submit a general feedback comment and when you log a route you get two options that are explained. You can also just click on the 'Add Feedback' button on any route at any time.

Alan

how much feedback is actually being generated - if it's a low traffic thing then it could be moderated by a volunteer (with guidelines)...  if rejected its sent to the logger so they can add it to their comments section ?

We are actually mid-way through some changes to the crag moderation system which we could work something like that into, although I suspect it is more than 'low traffic' with regard to comments. 

Alan

obvs millions of comments (not suggesting moderating them) but how much 'feedback' 

cheers  

What issue?

True, but it does appear at the top, in this case all by itself.

Clearly we can't expect you to delete all such examples, so if we see it as an issue (and my personal feeling is that it is) then either moderators or users should have some mechanism to flag and/or deal with examples. Perhaps it isn't as straightforward as I imagine to convert such items to standard comments though.

The issue of comments which are clearly not feedback appearing in the feedback section. Perhaps issue is too strong a term, but the situation is definitely a bit daft.

What is appropriate feedback? Bear in mind that the instructions in the "add feedback" tab specifies that it is acceptable to add beta for the moves... Presumably "brilliant" is a form of (very concise) beta? What is "clearly feedback" and what is "clearly not feedback"? And what are you basing that on other than your own opinion that someone writing "brilliant" is somehow transgressive/stupid?

Well the ultimate arbiter of such things said "In this case it was presumably submitted by mistake to the general feedback, and I can delete it (although I won't just yet to illustrate the point)." so it isn't just my own opinion.

Obviously there will be examples that are on the boundary between being comments and feedback, but there are also examples that fall unambiguously onto one side or the other. There are also examples of out-of-date feedback. I can see why some people would not consider this to be an issue, I have only ever said that in my opinion it is. I could add that I don't think it is one of the World's great issues, but in the context of this thread I am happy to lend my voice to OP's asking for a change.

If the owners of the website, prompted by expression of users on the forum, feel that there is value in addressing this then I have presented a potential mechanism.

In the grade range (5a to 6b ish) and crag range (Peak limestone quarries) where I've been climbing a lot over the last year and a bit, I almost always see the same name in the comments with the same style of comments - I'm sure they make perfect sense to record for that person but are completely useless when they come up as you click on the "info" button on the app when thinking about giving the route a go. 

So I know what the weather (including the what the prevailing wind direction was!) was like on the day s/he did the climb; who he or she climbed with - normally the same two male and female names; who led; who seconded; if the clips were in; who had to resort to the clip stick and so on. Because the same name and same style of comments come up weekend in, weekend out for me - I've started to wonder more about this steady mid-grade sport-route ticking team: are they all just mates out for a day of fun at Harpur Hill or do still water run deeper? Could there be an epic story of romance and heartbreak between the three people? Could it be an ultra-modern polyamorous 'family'? Is there a sordid love triangle of betrayal and deceit going on that will result in the Buxton equivalent of Inspector Morse having to investigate a tangled web of intrigue ultimately leading to a body being found in Horseshoe Quarry with a bloody Petzl Mark I Grigri lying next to it?

And all this when really all I wanted to know is did everyone else think this 5c felt bloody nails for the grade!!!

It is a little more complicated than first appears. You can only post a comment with an ascent whereas feedback can be independent of an ascent. In effect, feedback belongs to a route, whereas comments belong to an ascent.

To move an ascent comment to feedback is easy, and that option is presented to everyone as a red 'Public Feedback' note next to their comments. The other way round is tricky since there may be multiple ascents of the same route that it could be associated with, or no actual logged ascent.

The current thinking is that we will probably just have a delete button (or probably just a hide button). This will be accessible to crag moderators.

Alan

Could you simply make the feedback button harder to find? I think some people press it by mistake!

Sampling this bit (although the rest was classic!)

The whole reason we introduced feedback was because of the uselessness of many of the ascent comments. Initially, of course, we had no feedback so we kept the ascent comments in place but added the feedback from the old Rockfax database (mostly- pre-2010). Also, especially on harder routes, ascent comments are found very useful by some climbers tracking other climbers that they know well. So we have left both sets in place now although feedback is supposed to be prioritised.

Alan

id suggest that the delete button emails the feedback to the logger so they can add it to whichever ascent  it was associated with (if at all, they can figure it out) for their own records case when mistaken box.

'Hide' could show the feedback to only them (and crag moderator)

whatever approach, it sounds a sensible plan

Which of these comments is acceptable?

1. Desperate fridge-hugging crux section.

2. Three hard sections. Most people finish rightwards at the top using holds in the crack. Going direct is much harder, probably 7a.

3. This can't fail to be decent since it borrows so much climbing from other very good routes.

4. HVS 4c grade is wrong for this. Pitch 2 takes a very logical line but one which is closer to 5b at the top. Climb direct up a short groove then move left into a long diagonal groove which is easy at first but becomes harder near the top where some barn-door moves gain easier ground left of the overhang. More like HVS 4c, 5b or even E1 4c, 5b.

5. Tricky Start.

6. Only 6b for the tall.

Are any of the above acceptable to you and the OP?