Would you? How might you want it changed?

We all know it has some flaws. Climbs are over rated in some areas and surely underrated in others. East coast VS West coast for example.
I've seen climbs rated at a 5.5 that have changed in time, by rock shift and fall and now are 5.8 and 5.10 yet haven't been changed, or at least on paper they haven't been.
Should just exposure have it's own rating?
I think it would be great to add this independantly. For example, an overhang would have a rating of 5 and a chimney would have a rating of 2. Trees on a face might have lower it to a 1. Yet if there was a tree right next to the overhang the rating would be -5. Maybe you have an overhang at the top of the chimney yet because the overhang exists it's rated a -5. The chimney helps to make you feel good. It's just an idea. I don't have the nails ready for my hands yet so don't break out the hammers yet! LOL

What do you think. Does the system need a tweak or is it fine where it is?

Let: 
 
  i = 1 to n index n climbers' on-sight level 
  j = 0 to m index m + 1 YDS ratings 
Yij = 1 if the attempt by the ith climber 
      on the jth rated route is a success, 
      or 0 if it is a failure. 
X1i = the climber's on-sight level at the 
      time of the attempt 
X2j = the route's rating, after converting letter subgrades to decimals 
  
    P(Yij) = probability of success of Yij 
logit(Yij) = log-odds of Y(ij) 
 
Then: 
 
P(Yij)/[1-P(Yij)] = exp(a + b1*X1i - b2*X2j 
                    + b3*Xli*X2j) 
 
         logit(Yij) = a + b1*X1i - b2*X2j  
                    + b3*X1i*X2j 
 
                 Yij = expit(a + b1*X1i - b2*X2j  
                    + b3*X1i*X2j)

It needs the following tweak:

Code

So, as you can see, this the problems of the YDS can easily be solved by using appropriate statistical methodology.

Jay

alternatively, east coasters should know that west of the rockies when guidebooks say 5.5 they reallly mean 5.10, adjust from there!

We could not call it a decimal system, since it's not.

'I climb a 5.2, 5.2 > 5.16, therefore I'm the greatest climber in the world'

How lame is it to prefix every rating with "5."

Jay

Maybe we should switch to the yos fraction system.

I don't mind it the way it is. It's just a guide not carved in stone specific.

Lets just make it easier, like those cool machines in grade B restaurants that tell you how much of a man you are.
5.1-5.5=My penis is missing
5.6=a Bonaduce
5.7=a clay aiken
5.8=I need to stop gym climbing and get outside so I stop climbing 5.8's because its embarassing.b
5.9= cock blocker. getting better
5.10=Fonzi.
5.11=Hot shit.
5.12=A player (because you know your better than most)
5.13=10 inch wang.
5.14=Alpha male/ you can stir coals of a fire with your dong.
5.15 =BAD MO FO.

translation=I was out with this dude, and he wanted to climb a "my penis is missing", he red pointed it and said it felt like a clay aiken. So I had him belay me on a 10 inch wang and killed it so he felt like a little bitch.

The YDS has never failed me in indicating whether or not a climb is withiin my safe limits, combined with a visual inspection.

However, it could definitely use some tweaking for my spraying purposes.

If I were to change it I would cast away the number-chasing a,b,c,d subdivisions.

its called subjectivity - there is no way to avoid it and this system works fine, so why change it. I've been scared on 5.6's (more due to runouts, slabby moves, or dirt/moss/wetness/greenbriars/loose rock/snakes) and cruised 5.9's and 5.10's.
it all comes back to judgement.

It would be nice to have more clairification in our sub gradeing system (PG13, R, X).

For example: It would be nice to know if I were climbing a 5.11R, what exactly the R ment.