Half grades?

h

Sayar Kuchenski wrote:MP allows 5.XXa/b, b/c, and c/d. What about 5.10d/11a, 11d/12a and so on and so forth? It should be added to the drop down menu.

I disagree. Just make a decision one way or the other, it's not that big of a deal.

I think all grades can be a letter in either direction so pick one. It isn't that big a deal. For instance if I get on a 10a but it's 9+ or more 10b I don't care. It really isn't going to make a difference to most people anyway. The grades are guidelines. I think I agree with Sayar though, if you can have a 11c/d then you can have a 11d/12a. That is what the comment area is for I guess.

I agree that a dual grade is not necessary. It is fine how it is now on MP.

I would rather just have full grades instead of the split grades you can rate climbs on. 11a, 11b, but not 11a/b. The consensus grade should also give you clues on the rating.

that thang was full on 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288

Your way off Buff! It was more of a 3.14159265358979323846264338327950289
Your such a sandbagger

I've always been a little confused about this too but here is I how I look at it. If something feels solid for a grade, you can give it a whole letter (i.e. 11a, 12c, etc.) If it does not feel solid, (perhaps a one move wonder route or something that is discountinuous) I give it a mix grade (i.e. 11a/b, 12c/d) The plus and minus ratings are the same thing. An 11a/b is the same as an 11- and a 12c/d is a 12+.

A little confusing but that has always made sense to me...

No, it does not make sense to give one and not the other.

Imagine if the scale was 5.10a /.10b / and .10c, but no .10d, just straight to 11a. That would shift the range of input unfairly. Either a/b , b/c, and c/d should be removed, or d/a should be added

Joshua Merriam wrote:Imagine if the scale was 5.10a /.10b / and .10c, but no .10d, just straight to 11a. That would shift the range of input unfairly. Either a/b , b/c, and c/d should be removed, or d/a should be added

What is this debate about so precisely defining something that is really meaningless really about?

Anyone?
Sigmund?

tom selleck wrote:What is this debate about so precisely defining something that is really meaningless really about? Anyone? Sigmund?

cool, thanks for getting the ol' "just climb and don't worry about the grade" meme out of the way for us.

Alright so more people agree then disagree, so can we get it added?

Agree/disagree is so arbitrarily binary.

Ruland's vote is totally imprecise--the boxes force a full jump straight from "agree" to "disagree." What if he's only just marginally agreeward of indifferent?

That ambiguity is visually graphic in Ruland's case, but some of the other posters also sound only halfway aligned--or less--with your position. I'm afraid what we have is a pretty rough tally.

We always used to say 5.10d ***** or 5.11a ***
;')

tom selleck wrote:What is this debate about so precisely defining something that is really meaningless really about?

I'm with tom selleck and his amazing mustache!!!

Shawn Mitchell wrote:Agree/disagree is so arbitrarily binary. Ruland's vote is totally imprecise--the boxes force a full jump straight from "agree" to "disagree." What if he's only just marginally agreeward of indifferent? That ambiguity is visually graphic in Ruland's case, but some of the other posters also sound only halfway aligned--or less--with your position. I'm afraid what we have is a pretty rough tally.

agree+
agree
agree-
disagree+
disagree
disagree-

Remember, grade the level of agreement you have with the single most contentious point of the discussion and not your agreement or disagreement with the discussion as a whole. Also, anyone violating Guideline #1 should append their grade with an R.

(Please note that MP does not allow a grade of disagree+/agree-)