Not sure if this has been discussed but I haven't ever seen it around and nothing turned up on a search.

I think it would cool to have a category of routes based on who did the first ascent. The most obvious one and possibly the only one necessary would be for Fred Beckey routes. If you don't understand what I mean think of it as "JStar sets the coolest routes. I really like the movement he creates and it really fits my body type"

Now hear this. As the OP of this thread I declare that Guideline #1 is not of issue here. Post at your own risk. I hope that a few of you still think for a second about the suggestion in my original message.

There, that outta get a few pages.

Just in case that isn't enough I have another suggestion. Lines for routes should be governed by a system based on the addition of two numbers ranging from 1 to 5. These numbers will represent how hard you climb and your local factor. I of course will be granted a lifetime value of 10 for creating the "Climbers Rating System".

Nah, Crank has a point, for sure. In Red Rock, if you don't know who put the route up and have context for the type of routes the FA put up consistently, you get sandbagged, hurt, etc. Examples: Latest guidebook, Heart of Darkness upgraded from 10d to 11c, with a slab underneath the crux. You want to be a number grade off all surprised, or know that Harrison routes from the 80s tend to have teeth?

If you learn your history, you'll have a much better experience since you can avoid contrived BS routes that have too many bolts, or runout horrorshows, and everything in between.

Maybe an index of FA personalities would be more helpful, as a cross-reference on each page? A Joe Herbst route is not a Urioste route is not a Van Betten route is not a Crawford route. Helpful to know.