|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Sep 24, 2003, 6:31 PM
Post #51 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
this is what ticks me off about the rating:
Most recent routes
Total Area(s): 17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent:
White Rock Acres
Stoney Ridge
Governor Dick/Mt. Gretna
Haycock Mtn
Bauer Rock (South Mountain)
Emmaus Boulders
Boxcar Rocks
Infinity Wall
Devils Den
Big Rock Vista
Tucquan Overhangs
Railroad Rocks
Brickerville Rocks
Hammond Rocks
Blue Ridge Run Rocks
Kelly Drive Bouldering
Gripperz Rock
Total Section(s): 9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent:
BIG Wall
The West Face
First Section
Bouldering
Main Wall
Devils Gorge
Tuquan Overhangs
Wall of Infinity
Bouldering
Total Route(s): 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent:
(1) New First Climb
(10) Angry White Man
(11) Monkey Boy
(3) Itching to Climb
(4) Hognose
(5) Disco
(6) The Faint
(7) Fracture
(8 ) Puss N Boots
(9) Denny
Bottom Feeder
Dirty Thing
(2) Jingle Bells
Super Bird
Layback Knife
Brandon's Traverse
Finally
Dynamesh
Easy Dreaming
Pizza Route
Posts:695
Rating:70828
Versus
Total Area(s): 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recent:
Earthtreks - Timonium Center
Posts: 3490
Rating: 89496
The difference? A whole lot of posts....whether they were worth while posts or not makes no difference. But its such a pointless measurement, that I don't really concern myself with it. Frankly, I think we have bigger (and more) important bugs to solve before we need to hire an MIT grad to create the ultimate rating formula. I'd abolish it until its fixed.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 24, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #52 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Problem is, most "conspiracy theorists" see conspiracy in everything, so the above just sounds like propoganda to them.
Hehe, no my friend, the problem is answers like "this is a privately held site. It is not a democracy." If I may elablorate:
Consider the cussbot... I'm told by you admin types, repeatedly, that the majority of site users, management included, want the filter turned off. Is it turned off? No. Why? Its all been said before.
See, while I appreciate your answer and your sensebilities, even you have made it abundantly clear that this site is not a democracy and one person owns it. And by definition, you can't have a conspiracy of ONE.
I don't see a conspiracy. And I also don't see an official answer yet, either.
In reply to: There are ideas being kicked around, like setting up PDA downloadable files for a small fee, but this would more be to cover the costs of writing substantial code to support this. But at this time, there is not enough info in the RDB to really warrant even trying this.
So, the notion of charging members to access user contributed data has been discussed and fleshed out to the point where suggestions of how to charge members is under consideration. What were you saying about consipracy?
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Sep 24, 2003, 7:09 PM
Post #53 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
copyright!
That's the problem for me. I only update french areas through the numerous magazines and few books I own... so for me it's a problem! My actual politics is to use magazines older than 1 year, and to cite them all (but I just realise i didn't do it for my 4 last updates :oops: ). I give the references of the books too.
I mainly add infos on the rock, the style, the locations, just to GIVE PEOPLE the WILL to visit the place. For the route sections, I add them if I have good infos, otherwise i don't. Same things for routes, I add the most famous ones (in all grades) or the one I personaly climbed so I know what I say.
In France, the topos are usually published by the people who equiped the crag, so they can have some money back because equipment is expensive. How is it in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Sep 24, 2003, 7:10 PM
Post #54 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
I'm not sure where this thread started to split from the original topic to conspiracy theory, but I'd like to go back,In reply to: i think the climbingboulder/climbingmoab style sites do a much better job of organizing and presenting route information and discussion, and also the intentions of those websites is a lot more clear. |
|
|
|
|
micahmcguire
Sep 24, 2003, 7:13 PM
Post #55 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 889
|
nebraska, hmmmm.......pfwahahahahaha! good climbing there!
someone had mentioned that there aren't any websites that give sufficient information on climbing denali or foraker (particularly the sultana ridge). funny, I found tons of useful sites just looking on google. its not hard. if those dont work for you, buy a book.
|
|
|
|
|
tigerbythetail
Sep 24, 2003, 8:02 PM
Post #56 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 514
|
hangdoggypound wrote
In reply to: the routes here at rc.com are listed alphabetically which is not very helpful, particularly when a given area has a ton of routes
Actually you can go into the section and edit and at the bottom of the page there is a place to "order the section" - that is to arrange the climbs as they are encountered (left to right or right to left etc.). It helps to note in the section how the climbs are listed if it's not obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 24, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #57 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: hangdoggypound wrote In reply to: the routes here at rc.com are listed alphabetically which is not very helpful, particularly when a given area has a ton of routes Actually you can go into the section and edit and at the bottom of the page there is a place to "order the section" - that is to arrange the climbs as they are encountered (left to right or right to left etc.). It helps to note in the section how the climbs are listed if it's not obvious.
My personal feeling is when you know all the features of RC.coms database and how to use them, our setup is actually better than the "ClimbingBFE"-sites.
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Sep 24, 2003, 8:44 PM
Post #58 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
In reply to: In reply to: hangdoggypound wrote In reply to: the routes here at rc.com are listed alphabetically which is not very helpful, particularly when a given area has a ton of routes Actually you can go into the section and edit and at the bottom of the page there is a place to "order the section" - that is to arrange the climbs as they are encountered (left to right or right to left etc.). It helps to note in the section how the climbs are listed if it's not obvious. My personal feeling is when you know all the features of RC.coms database and how to use them, our setup is actually better than the "ClimbingBFE"-sites.
Wait a second. I just checked, for instance, this section but I don't see any such feature....Plus the featuer you talk about is not the same thing that I suggested above.
|
|
|
|
|
hangdoggypound
Sep 24, 2003, 8:54 PM
Post #59 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2002
Posts: 169
|
Wait again....scratch what I just wrote. I now see the "Order section" thingy. All though someone with time, patience and nothing else to do other than watch paint dry has to number each individual route for listing. All though I do appreciate the fact the feature is there. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Sep 24, 2003, 9:17 PM
Post #60 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
in what way is it better? here is what sucks about it:
1. there is no good way to add a star rating, or even better to have multiple people add their own star rating which are averaged
2. first ascent field is not there
3. some asshole can overwrite what you spent hours doing unless you lock it, which is a jerk move.
4. there is no good visible way to comment or amend a route description. most of the ascent logs are crap so i don't even bother looking through them.
5. there is no good way to comment on the gear for a route
6. the stupid database truncates the rack, which sucks for big hardware intensive routes.
7. the stupid database doesn't have ratings below 5.3, which matters for places like the flatirons or the gunks
8. the stupid database does not logically organize pictures
9. the display interface is unwieldy and sucks for walls that have numerous complex routes that require long descriptions
10. there is no quality control
11. even the area managers can't fix up typos and descriptions without overwriting the original submitter.
12. the style of climbing is at the rock formation level, which is not nearly fine grained enough for say boulder canyon
13. the rc.com database mangles your formatting unless you use html tags
i've submitted a lot of routes to both, and i hate the rc.com interface.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 24, 2003, 9:49 PM
Post #61 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: in what way is it better? here is what sucks about it: 1. there is no good way to add a star rating, or even better to have multiple people add their own star rating which are averaged
You can add star rating at the end fo the name. Yes it won't auto-average, but another user can come in, see what you star'd and if they feel strongly enough to change it can do so armed with the knowledge of what you thought of it.
In reply to: 2. first ascent field is not there
In reply to: 3. some asshole can overwrite what you spent hours doing unless you lock it, which is a jerk move. In reply to: Overwrite drunkenmaster with roughster:
In reply to: 4. there is no good visible way to comment or amend a route description. most of the ascent logs are crap so i don't even bother looking through them.
In reply to: 5. there is no good way to comment on the gear for a route 6. the stupid database truncates the rack, which sucks for big hardware intensive routes.
In reply to: 7. the stupid database doesn't have ratings below 5.3, which matters for places like the flatirons or the gunks
In reply to: 8. the stupid database does not logically organize pictures
In reply to: 9. the display interface is unwieldy and sucks for walls that have numerous complex routes that require long descriptions
In reply to: 10. there is no quality control
In reply to: 11. even the area managers can't fix up typos and descriptions without overwriting the original submitter.
In reply to: 12. the style of climbing is at the rock formation level, which is not nearly fine grained enough for say boulder canyon
In reply to: 13. the rc.com database mangles your formatting unless you use html tags
In reply to: i've submitted a lot of routes to both, and i hate the rc.com interface.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
herm
Sep 24, 2003, 11:21 PM
Post #62 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 498
|
It never occured to me to use the data base as anything other than a pissing-pole to display a bunch of gnarly routes I put up in obscure areas.
I honestly didn't think to add anything that wasn't my own FA. It didn't take long before I figured out how it really worked, though. Does the Nutcracker or Royal Arches really need to be in there? I can see the value of the DB for new routes and obscure areas. I bet guide book writers like MR hate it!
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Sep 24, 2003, 11:57 PM
Post #63 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: In reply to: 1. there is no good way to add a star rating, or even better to have multiple people add their own star rating which are averaged You can add star rating at the end fo the name. Yes it won't auto-average, but another user can come in, see what you star'd and if they feel strongly enough to change it can do so armed with the knowledge of what you thought of it.
that is total junk, and you know it. on the climbingbfe sites, it is a separate field, averaged, and you can even comment on why you are giving it the star rating while voting. there is not even a comparison here.
In reply to: In reply to: 3. some asshole can overwrite what you spent hours doing unless you lock it, which is a jerk move. There is a box you can check that will stop that from happening. It looks like: In reply to: Overwrite drunkenmaster with roughster: for example. Of course it is up to the updater to uncheck it. Thats something we can look at having changed to auto-unchecked.
this is not true at the route level(i just checked), which is my main beef. go check out some of the route descriptions i have done. a good example is the inwood arete on quandary peak in colorado. i spent a lot of time writing that up well, and some knucklehead overwrote my name to add that he thought there was loose rock. that pissed me off, especially since it is an alpine route, which nearly always has loose rock. if i could lock at the route level, i would.
In reply to: In reply to: 4. there is no good visible way to comment or amend a route description. most of the ascent logs are crap so i don't even bother looking through them. I don't understand the 1st part? It is easy to edit a description. As for the route logs, eh it is up to the users if they want to use them.
i think overwriting route descriptions is lame. i think it is better to have a comment and an active manager who merges them in if they are appropriate, as in climbingboulder. my main problem with using the ascent logs as an info source is that i don't want to spend 20 minutes clicking through them to find out everybody just onsighted the route. the climbingboulder interface where every route is its own page with all comments on that route being visible is far superior. climbingboulder also has a feature to email the site maintainer if you want to suggest a correction. that is nice so area managers would not have to comb through their areas continually.
In reply to: In reply to: 5. there is no good way to comment on the gear for a route 6. the stupid database truncates the rack, which sucks for big hardware intensive routes. Can't you put it in the Protections field? I just type in an 81 character length protection field as a test and it worked fine.
i use the protection field, and hit the end of it nearly every time i submit the rack for an aid route. this happened to me again earlier this week when i submitted cenotaph spire. i am adding tower routes that require big nailing racks and 5 sets of cams - i need as much space for the protection box as i do the description.
In reply to: In reply to: 8. the stupid database does not logically organize pictures It does them by highest vote. Thats not too bad. If you mean per "section" then that is because users are linking to the "Main Area" instead of the individual wall.
this should be more fine-grained - like at the route level. even better is, again like the climbingboulder interface, for the area manager to pick which photos are displayed with an area and have all pictures associated with a route be shown. when i pull up the page for the titan, i want to see a picture of the titan and which routes are available. i do not want to see a bunch of pictures of ancient art and the kingfisher, or someone bouldering at the gunks who blew their submission. when i look at the finger of fate route description on the titan, i want to see pictures of that route.
In reply to: In reply to: 9. the display interface is unwieldy and sucks for walls that have numerous complex routes that require long descriptions Hmm I haven't had an issue with it. Can you elaborate? I am not trying to be visicous(sic) here, but rather trying to see the concern so we can fix the issue.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...n.php?SectionID=1922 El Capitan is a good example. This would be even worse if the descriptions were formatted nicely with pitch by pitch descriptions, which is how I tend to write up route descriptions. If done right, the SE Face of El Cap page would be 300 screens long when all the routes are submitted.
In reply to: In reply to: 10. there is no quality control True, it is based on self-control not quality :lol:
area managers are lazy here and often don't know their own areas. my biggest turn off with the routes database is that the majority of the descriptions are awful, and no one does anything about it. on climbingmoab, i approve all the areas and rock that are submitted, and as part of that i discard the crap entries and edit the ones that are kept for typos, horrendous grammar, and in some cases accuracy. i try to do the same with route descriptions as much as possible, and if i miss something i generally get an email from someone telling me what the problem is. additionally, the highly visible commentary keeps people honest - when people submit crap, they are roasted for it. when they submit good stuff, the community usually gives them a pat on the back. people take a lot more pride in their descriptions.
the other biggie is indeed the loss of work. i was going to suggest looking at my petit grepon route description, but i see that it was either lost or overwritten badly by someone. i spent a lot of time on that description, and a lot of time describing the very intricate descent. climbingboulder has never lost a single route, ever.
|
|
|
|
|
pirateclimber
Sep 25, 2003, 9:41 PM
Post #64 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 114
|
In reply to: 3. some asshole can overwrite what you spent hours doing unless you lock it, which is a jerk move.
True that (not that I spent hours on it). I added two routes to the Holcomb Area this past Tuesday, omitting the names for lack of memory. Went back to update the names today, Thursday, and someone has deleted them. WEAK!
|
|
|
|
|
tigerbythetail
Sep 26, 2003, 12:44 AM
Post #65 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 28, 2002
Posts: 514
|
pirateclimber wrote
In reply to: True that (not that I spent hours on it). I added two routes to the Holcomb Area this past Tuesday, omitting the names for lack of memory. Went back to update the names today, Thursday, and someone has deleted them. WEAK!
That woud be me...guess I was too quick. Saw them listed as Unknown so went in and fixed it. Feel free to go back and put your name on them - I don't care who's name is there as long as the info listed is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
enanubis
Sep 26, 2003, 12:57 AM
Post #66 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Posts: 177
|
Added some for CT, although, if I made a mistake anyone is more then welcome to fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
pirateclimber
Sep 26, 2003, 12:59 AM
Post #67 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2002
Posts: 114
|
In reply to: pirateclimber wrote In reply to: True that (not that I spent hours on it). I added two routes to the Holcomb Area this past Tuesday, omitting the names for lack of memory. Went back to update the names today, Thursday, and someone has deleted them. WEAK! That woud be me...guess I was too quick. Saw them listed as Unknown so went in and fixed it. Feel free to go back and put your name on them - I don't care who's name is there as long as the info listed is correct.
Doh! Chris you tool! Actually, if I had simply looked a little harder I woulda noticed that they had been updated correctly. I'm just too slow! Totally cool, no worries.
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Sep 26, 2003, 3:47 PM
Post #68 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
I've contributed to RC.com as well as climbingboulder.com and they both have their merits. I think climbingboulder.com usually has more in-depth route info because there is more room (a whole page) to post the info and it includes a route quality (3 star) system. The route quality system is one of the most important. Hueco Tanks may be a world-class bouldering area but it also has tons of choss. You need a quality system to know what routes are worth doing. It could be argued that it's more important than the difficulty grade. Yes, at RC.com you could enter the stars after the name or grade but people don't do it. You need to have a new field for that.
But the edit function at rc.com seems good because the description can be continually updated. At Climbingboulder.com there is pertinent beta added to routes later but they are often buried in a mountain of other comments.
Overall, I say climbingboulder.com wins for detailed local info but RC.com wins for having a more large scale world oriented design. Both sites will get better if the administrators/coders listen to our gripes/suggestions and if we all contribute quality beta to the site.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Sep 26, 2003, 6:10 PM
Post #69 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
A route quality system???
Why not add some stars or no star after the name of the route???
I just did that yesterday for Crenans. Go see Europe > France > Massif du Jura > Crenans. It's so simple... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
fredrogers
Sep 26, 2003, 6:52 PM
Post #70 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2003
Posts: 288
|
Why a route quality system? It could let you search for routes based on quality rating. And if there is a specific field for it then people will be more likely to include this information. I think quality ratings should also be applied to complete area much the same way that Tim Toula does in Rock N Road. Yosemite gets a 5 star rating while a little bouldering quarry may get 1 star.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Sep 26, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #71 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
OK, I see your point. But do you trip to a crag for one beautiful route or for an overall nice crag? So maybe rating the crags wouldn't be a bad idea. In France, I put all the nice crags in bold characters.
|
|
|
|
|
rcaret
Sep 26, 2003, 8:20 PM
Post #72 of 72
(4501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 227
|
Well , As a matter of fact , Yes .
|
|
|
|
|
|
