UKC

Why does it seem like 90% of the times people I know have put new lines up, given as much information as possible (including photos with the line drawn on them) do the moderators seem to either reject the possibility that it’s something new, allow it but put themselves as the first ascentionists 20 years prior or just copy all the information provided and upload it as their own?

yes this may come across as a rant but would like to open up a discussion on the ethics of moderating and route updates/ eliminate creations/ new lines that get logged decades before the upload of the route

90% is quite a claim. Can you give some examples? Because without any there isn't much substance to your rant.

Also, what do you mean by

...upload it as their own where?

Broadly speaking, having moderated quite a number of crags for a number of years, I reckon this cuts both ways. People do try to claim stuff that has very obviously been climbed before and not recorded, but conversely you do see comments on forums pooh-poohing the idea that anything could possibly be new, which is also nonsense.

If you want a rant then fair enough but if you want to open up a discussion, starting with a rant isn't the way to do it.

Which crags? Which routes? Which moderators? Who is submitting which routes that are getting knocked back?

If you're not willing to say that, then no one who moderates crags is going to take you seriously. If there is genuine issue, raise it in the moderation thread and it will get dealt with quickly. 

I had an email overnight about a relatively obscure crag about 50 kms west of Helsinki that I happen to moderate. I accepted the updates that someone had submitted and then, on reflection, decided that as I was at that moment trying to clean my teeth and get ready to head into work to see some of my A level students for last minute reassurance before they went into their first A level exam, and shouldn't really be moderating crags for UKC, I resigned from being the moderator for that crag. Hopefully whoever it was who made the updates might take over moderating, although far more likely is that no one will because they have other things they need to do more urgently and can't be arsed reading snippy threads on UKC moaning about moderators.

I moderate a few crags on the roaches area. 

My style is not including pointless eliminates and stuff I know has been done before. 

I get first ascent claims of easy stuff on some of the most climbed on rock in the country. These are not first ascents 

I get sit down start claims on problems that are not logged as a sit down starts but know they have been climbed in the past. 

Just because something doesn't have a grade a name and a first ascent date and logged doesn't mean it's new. 

I understand some people may be desperate to get a first ascent but when it's not I'm afraid for me anyway,I don't log it. 

If we're talking bouldering (which I strongly suspect we are), then from personal experience UKC bouldering crags are a bit of a nightmare to moderate. I stopped moderating most of the ones that I did moderate a long time ago. Too many eliminates, defined starts etc being submitted, which were impossible to practically moderate unless able to regularly pop down to the crag. Same with claimed FAs. What really does my head in is when people believe they have done a first ascent purely on there being no stated information in a guidebook, without any further enquiries.

I think the more common need is climbers want to log things they have climbed that are currently unlisted. There is a clear balance to be set somewhere between 1what is reasonable to expect a crag moderator to include and what a small number of the climbing public want. I've zero sympathy for claims of low grade micro-elimimnates (the climber can put details in the comments on the main line) and little sympathy for low grade FA retroclaims (occasionally nuts,  given some were polished!?) but I often do have sympathy for recording good/useful lines that some editor didn't include in a book. A classic example are the lines I used to help Sav, with his physical disabilities, at Burbage North: VD to Easy lines between Overhang Buttress Arete and Burgess Face. There are really good kids/ bumbly problem lines at Burbage North as well, including: on the first small Buttress you reach and on the bigish block under Ash Tree Wall.

looking at your photos on here I'm going to guess you've fallen victim to Mark Sharratt's possibly harsh approach outlined below (I can't tell if he's deleting them or just the FA details) .

I think knowing the difference between adding stuff to UKC so you can log it and claiming a FA is the key point.

I'm of the opinion that the database is effectively unlimited so people are free to record anything they want to as we're no longer concerned with the limitations of printing. But as Mark said go easy on the wild FA claims on obviously explored rock at popular crags.

Most of the crags I moderate regularly get mediocre new additions, including by me, which I'll moderate by removing FA details and the star rating given and where appropriate adding to a buttress header "eliminates/link-ups" or similar to avoid cluttering up the general stuff.

Also be honest and self-aware of the quality of what you're adding and you're less likely to wind-up moderators.

I think including too mamy variations and link-ups makes the logbook pages unwieldy. There are examples where a multistar line that is better than the original routes (its made up from) deserves significant attention (Nemmes Sabe is a great single pitch example at Bamford) but as for the many combinations possible on more general link-ups climbers can again make that clear in comments on the main line, just as they can for trivial variations on a line.

I also think UKC might benefit from some clearer guidance on this for submissions and moderation. We need keen happy moderators, so the job of dealing with the more obsessive minded shouldn't be too onerous. I certainly sympathise with moderators after co-maintaining a lower grade Peak gritstone database for many years: getting frustrated with checking utter shit or wasting time dealing with inadequate location or route information.

I tend to think of UKC crag moderators as doing a voluntary and very useful job for the benefit of all, so I'd be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and take it that they generally have sound reasons when rejecting submissions.

Although there may be occasional instances of the things you mention, I don't believe most moderators are in it to "steal" new routes. Your suggestion that the practice is widespread (with the strangely specific 90%) is, frankly, ridiculous!

As a crag mod on some esoteric Peak gems, I'm often dumbfounded when folk climb the start of one route, and the finish of another (a mere metre and a half to the right of the first routes finish) and claim it as a new line and as an FA, when they've climbed no new rock whatsoever and just done a link up. Not worth logging, otherwise there's umpteen million new combos available as FAs to the otherwise bored, or fame hungry. Came across one this week at  Bottoms Quarry linking up two existing VS. WHY?! 

I've come around to the view that, within reason, people should add whatever naff link-ups and eliminates they want on UKC, and it's up to the moderator to organise it in such a way that it's not massively confusing to view.

But trivial variations with totally new names, FA claims for either these or for stuff that's clearly been done before, and multiple stars for minor additions - this kind of thing shouldn't be accepted just because someone submits it. UKC crag database is a very widely used resource, and having crags well moderated is in the interest of everyone who uses it.

I disagree with your first paragraph... it could easily increase the work by a significant factor. Naff link-ups can be described in comments within the routes they link. A small number of link-ups are better than the existing routes they utilise and deserve to be listed.

Totally agree with your second paragraph.

I guess it comes down to what you consider 'within reason'. I would agree that some things are too pointless or minor to be worth listing, but UKC is a logbook not a guidebook, so there's a bit of balance to be struck between gatekeeping and letting people log what they want to log, even if it's log.

If you come at this from a bouldering perspective, it's harder to draw a clear line as to what qualifies - link-ups and variations and eliminates are sometimes just as prized and popular as the main lines. And then if people want to treat routes in the same way - I dunno, I don't favour that approach myself, but where do you make the cut?

I haven't seen a lot of trad crags where it's an issue, but some bouldering and sport crags have got really silly, where the crag listing shows about 5× the number of actual routes or problems, which from a potential visiting climber's browsing perspective is totally confusing. Basically every conceivable sequence of holds or way of linking bolts up the crag. Though it's not too hard for a moderator to put all that stuff in a separate buttress heading, which I would say is the best compromise to please everyone.

Yes, what is 'within reason'. Prized and popular variations are absolutely fine in my view: often more important than some stuff listed in definite guides.

The issues I had were more common on trad (maybe as gritstone gets more traffic) with crap or minor variations. We tried to climb and record everything at lower grades on the popular Peak crags (and YMC grit to a lesser extent) so regularly did a trawl of new UKC logbook submissions. An exception for us was some scrappier easy and mod climbs, as they are rarer and we often found them useful for those with some form of limited physical ability (like Sav).

We added about a hundred previously unlisted trad lines (nearly all FA unknown, but quite a few FRAs for the good climbs at HS and above and a small number of FAs) to BMC and YMC guidebooks but ignored many more variations or crap (sometimes with a note,  like: "the small buttresses to the right have been climbed but are now overgrown and perhaps best left that way). We also recorded over a thousand independant lower grade boulder problems on grit (mostly unpublished, but did we put over a hundred previously unlisted problems into our Burbage South Valley Boulders pages, on our Offwidth website, for family picnics and 'beanie bumblys')

One problem is that climbers finding something too bold and/or hard on the day, and simply escaping onto another route, having put the effort in, tend to want to log something other than "did not finish". In other words, they can't bear the ignominy of a greyed-out logbook entry! 

This route seems to fit that bill exactly: Strumpets in the Sunshine (E1 5b)

Avoids the crux Flourish of Strumpets and the crux of Sunshine Supernan yet tries to claim the E1 grade for what is much more like VS climbing. Not yet approved by the moderator but needs to be binned (The final bit of SS is already eliminate so its not as if the link up is a decent variation).

What enquiries should be made to whom, and where?  Who exactly is it who maintains a list of 'things that have been done but the guidebook author couldn't be bothered to publish it'?  UKC isn't a guidebook, therefore it makes sense to allow recording of everything in order to be the de-facto national route repository.  People are always going to claim FAs again and again unless the route is logged.

Scotland already has one, and it's said to be coming to an England and Wales near you...

It depends where we are talking about. There are plenty of FB groups for different areas (at least in Norway there are - can't imagine the UK is any different). If I genuinely thought I had done a FA then I would probably start there. Checking other websites, such as 27crags. Most guidebooks have a contact re new routes. These seem pretty basic steps to take. If the person adding a FA hasn't gone through these basic steps then why should I do their research for them as a moderator?

I'm usually happy to let the entry stand, provided there is a sufficient description, but if there's no evidence of any checking of history then I sometimes remove the FA details, or change it to a claimed FA in the text. Sometimes I merge it with an existing route if just too much an eliminate, or if someone has just evidently got lost on the route. Sometimes I change the name to something more descriptive if there is sufficient doubt about a FA. Sometimes I just quit being the moderator if proving too much hassle. It depends on the case.