Mountain Project Logo

Quality Stars

Original Post
Joshua Merriam · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 1,096

..while I'm being a nitpicker and thinking about numerical ratings.. it's always bothered me that 4 stars is the system. Something just doesn't feel right. There's no middle. It's 2 (less than half, or 3 (more than half)

Then when the first poster gives it 4 stars (1 vote) and some classic route has a 3.7 average (~50 votes) thats unfair.

I think every route should start with a 2 star default.
with every additional vote, the average goes up, (or down)
and only routes with several good votes could get close to the top of the scale. Then, when I search an area for high quality routes, I wouldn't just get a page full of (FA's) that started as 4 stars.

saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221

Routes don't start with any "default" rating, and I don't think they should. The initial star rating is what is given by the person who adds it to the database. I expect that's usually based on the climber's personal reaction to the route, or it could be a reflection of the star rating in a guidebook.

Whether this is "fair" or not is of course a matter of opinion, but I think that having every route added to the database start out with a mediocre two-star rating would definitely be unfair and unrealistic. Your statement about a "page full of FAs that started as four stars" implies that the first ascentionist's opinion is biased and can't be trusted, but I sort of doubt that's the case.

Opinions on route quality usually don't vary wildly. I think if you looked at the votes for your 3.7-star classic, you'd find most were three or four stars and very few ones or twos; conversely, if you checked a 2.3-star route, I'd bet money it didn't start out with a four-star rating.

Consensus is the ultimate way to get a "fair" rating for a climb.

JL

Luke to Zuke · · Anchorage · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 220

.ha.... just go climb it , and tell me if i should.

thats the rating

1Eric Rhicard · · Tucson · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 10,101

I don't think anyone should give stars until they have climbed a couple of thousand climbs. In the beginning anything I climbed was great. Sometimes the experience is four star but the climbing really isn't. Leviathan is a perfect example. A great experience and a route anyone that considers themselves a local needs to do, but the rock is funky in places and the moves are really good on only a few sections. When I added it to the data base I was torn about stars and then I thought of four star routes I had done the summer before at the Needles in CA and it was easy not to give it 4 stars.

If a route on MP.com has four stars it is a "classic" yet some classics are not four star routes. In Tucson we rate no stars-don't bother, 1 star-worth doing, 2 stars -good, 3 stars-don't miss it. Even on MP.com most Tucsonans only rate with 3 stars unless it is super good then we might throw on the fourth so people know it is super good.

Even so stars are just a guide you might have a blast on a one star route.

The consensus is not a consensus if everyone who climbs a route doesn't give their opinion.

saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221
Eric Rhicard wrote:I don't think anyone should give stars until they have climbed a couple of thousand climbs.
Heh, I guess I won't be asking for your recommendation on the best place for sushi in Arizona then.

JL
1Eric Rhicard · · Tucson · Joined Feb 2006 · Points: 10,101

That is correct. I have only had it a half dozen times here and know that I like it but I couldn't tell the difference between good Bluefin or okay Bluefin. Mexican food on the other hand I can help you with.

Danny Inman · · Arvada · Joined Jan 2005 · Points: 860

One must keep in mind the climb in question relative to others at that particular area. It is unfair to compare a route at a local sport crag to the Nose. For example, there is a local choss pile that I climb at regularly during the winter, I have rated climbs there 3 and 4 stars although the place as a whole is at best one star.

Joshua Merriam · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 1,096
rickd wrote:4 stars = a route not to be missed by a visitor or done in the first week of a trip. ------------------ if you conduct an advanced search on this site of all areas all types of route, 5.7-5.11d- you get more than 20 pages of 4 star routes. I can guarantee that there are not than many 4 star routes on the planet.
That's my point.. it shouldn't be 4 stars on the site until several people agree that it's 4

start: 2
FA gives it a 4 : avg = 3
Second person gives it a 4 : avg = 3.33
Third person gives it a 4 : avg = 3.5

This way, there will never be ANY climbs with a perfect score, but the more people agree, the closer it can get.
Nate Oakes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2006 · Points: 235

I think the system is fine as it is. Josh, while I don't think your idea is without merit, I don't think it's better than the current system. You can see the number of votes and what each person voted easily. If it's only been voted on once or twice, that's not hard to figure out. You'll be at the route page anyway, and it tells you there how many people have voted on it. I don't think any change is necessary, and I wonder how you could change it without creating problems.

Stonyman Killough · · Alabama · Joined Jan 2008 · Points: 5,785

It's not anything to argue about or even debate. The star rating is like John explained, an opinion of the climber who submited the route to the data base and I think thats fair. You can allways comment your decision, when you climb the route. Just my thoughts, my two cents, thats all. Nothing more, nothing less.

Aaron Martinuzzi · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2008 · Points: 1,485

anyone familiar with the five-star system in the red river gorge guidebook (wolverine publishing)? i like that one, because, here, deciding between 2 (good) and 3 (great) is often very tough. there are a lot of climbs that i've been on that i've liked, but to say they were better than most (i.e. 3 star) wasn't true, but to say worse than most (2 stars) also wasn't fair.

a good example was a Crystal Wall today. first route, decent. not thrilling, but worth climbing. i feel like one star doesn't tell other people the route was worthwhile. the second route i ended up climbing was better, but certainly not something i would consider great. though it was notably better than the other climb, it nevertheless wasn't a route i thought warranted more than two stars, which was the minimum i think communicated the 1st route's value. dilemma...

Joshua Merriam · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 1,096

obviously, quality ratings are subjective. I'd like the subjetive nature taken into account in regards to consensus, especially when the number of submissions is small. (esp. = 1)

Aaron Martinuzzi wrote:anyone familiar with the five-star system in the red river gorge guidebook (wolverine publishing)? i like that one, because, here, deciding between 2 (good) and 3 (great) is often very tough.
AND I think a base 4 star system is numerically awkward.
Wiled Horse · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Dec 2002 · Points: 3,669

there IS actually five quality ratings:

0 bomb
1 ok
2 good
3 great
4 classic

Joshua Merriam · · Boulder, CO · Joined Feb 2007 · Points: 1,096

hmm, yep.

good point

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Discuss MountainProject.com
Post a Reply to "Quality Stars"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.