UKC

If we're lucky the star ratings from the latest definitive guidebook are included with climb entries, but much of the time the climber entering the route doesn't bother; also, FAs often award stars to their own routes, even if the routes are crap, either because they're deluded or because they want to encourage traffic. The voting system isn't really much use, because not enough people use it, so the originally entered information rarely changes.

It's so far from being a useful, comparative system on UKC that I wonder why it's there at all.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Hey hey... It's ok to be grumpy around Christmas.

I don't own a definitive guidebook for anywhere. But with that said, I find the stars and the voting untrustworthy.

Make of that what you will.

I am sick to death of seeing a new bouldering area be developed and all the problems be given 3 stars. Deluded alright!

In reply to zimpara:




Where?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Got any examples?
I personally reckon you often get more info on grade/ route quality etc on the logbooks here than you do in The guidebooks.
If the ukc logbooks had photo topos they'd be perfect and I'd definitely pay a premium.

In reply to deacondeacon:

Certainly if you are a serial logbook trawler, the comments are often revealing and you soon learn which posters are worthwhile and accurate contributors.
I think there is more of an issue with newly developed or less popular routes where there are few votes or comments and as Brian says first ascentionists may have vested interests (or false modesty).
A few examples of this that I've climbed recently that come straight to mind:
At North Quarry in Somerset
Gillyweeedz (4b) forgettable meander, not worth a star.
Chew on This (4b) ditto.
Long in the Tooth (5a) better, but 2 stars is over egging it.
The climbs there are a good resource and have been well bolted, they perhaps deserve more traffic, but that won't make them any more star worthy.
At the Cuttings (Portland)
For Michèle (6a) no stars? Think the first ascentionist here (Mick Ward) has adopted the "I'll see how others rate it, rather than award stars myself approach", understandable, but possibly further muddies the waters of accuracy when it comes to stars. Early comments and votes on this route indicate it is likely to gain recognition as a 3 star classic, quite probably the best route of its grade on the East side of the isle.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Other issues with UKC star voting are being led by the consensus, or the Rockfax ordained rating ...easy to be swayed.
Also I've noticed that with some routes I've logged recently (and voted for) the star votes have not registered. There appears to be no other way to vote other than when logging a route nowadays, and if votes don't register then opinions are lost.
There probably is a fix for the vote registration (perhaps an issue with my ancient Mac and outdated browser), but solving the other issues is not so easy.
Perhaps best to get out there and climb, talk to climbers and be led by experience ...but that would be a rather old fashioned approach.

In reply to The Ivanator:

Actually, thinking about it, as a climber/punter I'm not particularly bothered by the imperfections and inconsistencies - I think I was posting more from a UKC crag moderator's perspective. I'm often tempted to "tidy up" the crags I moderate, especially the crags I know best - redistribute some stars, and amend database grades when it's clear to me (and also generally agreed) that the last guidebook was wrong. However, that amount of interference feels like it would be exceeding the brief (and potentially offending some FAs). Aren't we supposed to wait until changes appear in a definitive guidebook before changing route information?

In reply to bpmclimb:

Even if you wrote it Downgrading Bad to the Bone (whilst correct) seems unseasonal, we all like a gift!

In reply to bpmclimb:

Yeah it's definitely a little weird. The main starring presumably is what the guidebook says and then there's the voting system. In popular areas like the Peak I find the voting pretty good. The guidebook grades can be good or way off.

A few years ago I was climbing at Masson Lees. The guidebook just gives everything one star which is absurd. It looks like those stars have been awarded on the basis of just guessing since they seem to bear no relation to the voted stars - some routes getting a good number of 3 star votes.

In reply to bpmclimb:


The problem is there are also moderators who will just change a logbook grade just because they personally found a route hard/easy, which doesn't reflect as much general consensus as would do a guidebook.

In reply to bpmclimb:

Seems a bit pointless being moderator if you can't change the logbooks based on your knowledge/experience. Then again if you have that much enthusiasm (a good thing!) perhaps your efforts would be better served in offering to help out with definitive guidebook work?

In reply to Michael Gordon:


Actually, I have been involved with several guidebooks over the last few years, but find myself between projects at the moment; which no doubt explains my preoccupation with UCK logbooks

In reply to bpmclimb:


I'd certainly tidy up route description or add corrections, but I wouldn't change the grade or stars awarded in the guide book. Of course you can add a comment saying "believed to be overgraded etc..."

In reply to bpmclimb:

The other perspective - is that whatever reluctant feedback is given - amounts to more info than u would have had otherwise. I bemoan lack of star ratings and commenting ...