To be honest though I'm still not even sure what the "signal" is actually supposed to be. Serious answers to serious questions? In depth trip reports with great pics? Rigorous testing of systems and gear?

That sounds more like a magazine than a forum.

I think the comment "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" is incorrect.

OK, then what were you trying to say?

To me it seemed like you're saying an aggressive poster's noise is somehow switched to signal because they're "known". That's an invalid argument in my book.

Josh

And there you have it. Why is the signal-to-noise ratio here low? Because that is exactly what the majority of users here want.

Jay

Incorrect? You think someone else stating what *they* like is factually incorrect. Who the fuck do you think you are that you know what she, or I, really like? I won't speak for Julie, but yeah, I'd rather talk about climbing, and not on a website where there's a roving gang of users with a club that says "keep out" on the door who'll gang up on anyone who says differently.

GO

my bold.

Seems like you like to come across with a club. It seems that coming across that strong while complaining that others come across that strong is inconsistent.

Sorry if my phrasing was incorrect, feel free to keep talking about climbing.

edit: (moved bold slightly)

Phrasing? What? Dude, read what I actually wrote, it's not what you think. I'm not complaining about you coming across strong. Maybe you don't know the meaning of the word club: A group of people organized for a common purpose, especially a group that meets regularly. Clubhouses may have signs on the door, such as You are not wanted here. Do you get it yet?

What I'm "complaining" about is your claim to speak for what JSH wants, in direct contradiction to what she said. You have no right to do so, and it's incredibly rude.

GO

I think that, for me, the phrase "All I want is to shoot shit about climbing while I'm stuck indoors" would be put as …

It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.

Most people seem to agree that this site could be "better" but few probably agree on what that actually means.
.
.
.

As much as people like to complain about this site, it seems to me that it can't be all that bad and still remain (by far) the most heavily viewed climbing site--with many times the number of users, threads and posts of any other site. It certainly isn't the quality of the "Routes" database that keeps people coming back, so it must be something about the overall RC.com experience that people find to be of value.

Just a little food noise for thought.

Curt

Well, I have been baned from the lab....
and the mods have deleted 2 of my topics about it. Why does JT and Curty boy get to say whatever they want, but I get banned and not even an explanation from the Mods...

its become very draconian around here, and I have had enough....out

I wonder if the second observation is an artifact of the name of the site? Googling "rock climbing" brings up rc.com as the first linked site. The gumbies can't help but click here and enter the arena before watching the game from the sideline to learn how it's played. That entertains both the regular field players and the pine riders enough to keep coming back.

It is the urge to quote and reply only to make a point that increases the noise.

It's amusing to observe how much the signal-to-noise ratio in the signal-to-ratio thread has declined from page 1 to page 5.

I like to be involved in informative, well thought out conversations, which is why I spend most of my time WITH REAL CLIMBERS IN THE REAL WORLD instead of bitching and whining and trying to learn how to climb 5.12 on the internet.

I have one high-signal comment to make: High signal-to-noise ratios don't happen on their own. The signal strength has to be defended. It can be defended by management or it can be defended by popular consent. But neither of those things happens here to any significant degree. If you want a high SNR, you have to reduce the noise. You have to stop the repetitive questions, have a FAQ, insist that it be consulted, insist that answers be googled for before questions are asked, etc. This is what every web site I know of that has a high SNR does. But the culture here is a noise culture. Look at what happens whenever a long-time user asks a n00b who has started a shoe thread for the 100th time in a month, to do a search. Who gets attacked: the experienced user. You want a high SNR? Well, you can't have it while continually rewarding noise.

Jay

While this is true to some degree, there is a lot to be gained by closer to real-time discussion than an FAQ can provide. Models change, perspectives change, and the dynamics of a user group change. Each of these can turn a tired subject into a meaningful discussion.

Having said that, I tend to simply ignore clearly uneducated and poorly thought out questions all together. If someone really puts effort and thought into a "simple" question simply because it is outside of their typical realm of understanding, it is worth a genuine response. That, to me, is the advantage of a useful forum rather than an FAQ or static gear review.

Edited to add: I guess to use your point above, I'm arguing that a high SNR can happen by increasing the signals rather than reducing the noise.

I never intended to speak for anyone but myself, I’m sorry you took it any other way. As I said, I apologize if my lazy phrasing struck a nerve.