In reply to MarkRoe:
> It's come to my attention that UKC is full of people who vote for upon the grades and quality of routes that they have never climbed and sometimes know very little about. To give an example: last summer myself and my brother tried a route a that in all probability hasn't seen an ascent in a number of years, (due to it's grade, location ect). Both of us managed it on lead with one rest and vowed to return for the clean lead. I added the route from the FRCC website to UKC, logged it as dogged, and voted on the grade and quality of the route. When I looked at it again yesterday (despite it almost certainly having never been attempted since) a number of people have voted on it, seeming randomly.
A lot of people have been filling their logbooks with legacy ticks hence, the fact that a route hadn't been climbed when you uploaded it, nor since apparently, doesn't mean the ascents are bogus. There are hundreds of hard trad routes across the country that were once very popular but now see much less traffic.
Of course the date of the ascent may give you the impression it was climbed a a separate time, but I think some people are rather sloppy with their dating after all, I have no idea when I did some routes on obscure routes on high Lakeland crags. I probably couldn't even be sure of getting the right decade, never mind month and year! If you just want the tick then it is quicker to ignore the date.
> The same theme can be seen in lots of routes, especially those at the highest grade. Routes like Indian Face and Equilibrium have votes all over the place in every category, presumably mostly by people who have done little more than look at it or watch a video.
That doesn't surprise me - celebrity routes and all that.
Overall I don't think "UKC is full of people" who do this, I think there may be a few weirdos out there who like to create bogus logbooks. This is almost certainly swamped by true data on the vast majority of routes.
Alan