|Type:||Trad, 2 pitches, 300'|
|Consensus:||YDS: 5.10d French: 6b+ Ewbanks: 21 UIAA: VII+ ZA: 21 British: E3 5b [details]|
|Submitted By:||Tony B on Sep 21, 2002|
|Climbing areas reopened after flood MORE INFO >>>|
|Comments on East Overhang||Add Comment|
|Show which comments —
By Bill Wright
Sep 26, 2002
|This is a very aesthetic finish when climbing the Second Flatiron. Unfortunately, it is much harder than the rest of the face. The hard climbing is really only about six feet long, but it is quite difficult and confusing. The climbing is very steep here and the holds for feet and hands are quite marginal. I don't think tape is necessary as you only do a two or three hand jams and they weren't that rough. I followed it without any skin damage and I've been known to chew up my hands.|
By Guy H.
From: Fort Collins CO
Sep 26, 2002
|Tony thanks for spending the time on writing about these hard crack lines on the 2nd. I am looking forward to giving them a try sometime. As for the A.C., why don't you go clip some bolts at the Sport Park.|
By Michael Komarnitsky
From: Seattle, WA
Sep 28, 2002
You ask 9 questions, each answer of which could be several paragraphs long. However, I'm climbing this morning so I'll keep it short and sweet.
A main issue that your questions are addressing is the density of quality and relevant information on the site. In other words, not just having on-topic, well-written posts, but not having to find them through a million bad sprays. It's akin to a signal-to-noise ratio; can you find the "good signal" (awesome posts and pics) among the noise (worthless spray).
Complicating this is that there is not just one "good signal" for a route. Some may not want to read the beta (to preserve onsight possibilities), FA history, or any other topics that relate somewhat remotely to the route. What you "want" is just 1 subset of the data, while other users want their own subsets; some smaller, some bigger.
So how can we serve as many people as possible? By making the data pretty inclusive, while encouraging posters to keep each post as focused on the route as possible. So far I think we're doing a pretty good job; your post is evidence that we are held to a higher standard for relevance on climbing beta than other climbing sites full of spray out there. I doubt these questions would go over well in the frontrangebouldering.com thread entitled "WHO IS THE SEXIEST MAN CLIMBER IN THE FRONT RANGE??" (though you could certainly try).
We do remove posts from time to time. However, it is something that is relatively infrequent, for two reasons. One, the inherent uncertainty of one man's irrelevance is another man's interesting content. Secondly, there's a time issue. I work way too much on this site, relative to any type of monetary compensation. There are other administrative volunteers who spend hours processing correction suggestions, photos, questions, and support. After drinking 5 cups of coffee over 4 hours at Caffe Sole redesigning and implementing a new comment architecture on a live application, (like I did 2 weeks ago) the last thing I want to do is comb through routes looking for comments that I think are less interesting than others.
If you want to be part of the solution; when you see posts that you feel are completely irrelevant, send us a "suggest a correction" note and exactly what and why we should make a change on the page. We'll look at it and may take action. I have to credit Tony Bubb for doing this often; he has pointed out conversations/confusion about some objective issues; once it is clarified, he has notified us on what to remove and how to integrate the resolution into a more concise form.
The penalty for removing posts is that some people out there may want that content; it would be akin to me removing the Sport Park (something I have considered, believe me). Then some 16 year old who doesn't know any better can't find his 12b redpoint project that he can actually do. The penalty for NOT removing posts is that visitors have to read a little bit more. Which is better?