.

.

I guess I could be partially to blame, if it was memorable to me it's a classic (must do) if it isn't it gets 2 stars and I don't usually get on bomb routes so I will leave that rating to someone else.

I have rated things classic that were 3 star routes (most likely alot). But when I think about it I still consider all of the routes classic for some reason or another. Weather it is because of super aesthetic features, great moves and pro, or a good learning experience for different techniques.

You know what this site really needs?

More Cowbell.

My stars are right where I want them.

HI COW!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think people can put their stars up and then comment below for their reasoning.

Well, the system is self-correcting, so what's the problem? If you rate something four stars and everyone else rates it two, your four stars won't carry much weight in the average rating.

JL

Rick, you make a very good point. I must admit that I'm one of the most egregious perpetrators - I tend to award more stars than the average climber. Looking over my star ratings I see there are many that could stand bumping down a notch. But that's when I compare them side by side. There's definitely a huge difference between a classic multi-pitch route and a classic sport route. But I tend to give stars in context to the type of climbing, and the area. So although a 4 star multi-pitch climb in a classic location may be many times better than a 4 star single pitch route in a lower-quality area, I want to recognize those climbs that are the best for that area, IMO. I guess therefore I am following your advice regarding what climbs I would suggest if someone were climbing that area for 1-2 days. And I don't mean to suggest that I'd give 4 stars for the best route in an area where all the climbs pretty much suck - I wouldn't. But if I feel a climb is real fun and one of the better routes for the grade in a decent area, it gets 4 stars. My apologies to anyone who thinks I'm just a bit too star happy. ;-)

saxfiend has it right. The system is self-correcting.

Why don't you just add a 5th star and only people who really know how to rate a route will be allowed to use this fifth star option.

Do you smell something? Ah yes! I believe it's sarcasm.

not to point things out, but of the 41 routes you have rated, 15 have 4 stars... thats nearly 1/3... maybe everyone thinks 27.3% of the climbs they get on are 4 stars. certainly this would explain all the 4 star ratings :) on a side note, there isn't a cloud in the sky and i think im gonna go climb some 4 stars myself. have a nice day.

if you bring the cowbell ill bring my spoons

Nice point Ternes. Of the 80 routes I've bothered to rate only four get the 4 Star treatment.....damn, I've been climbing too many crap routes and not enough classics.

Bill Olszewski wrote:But I tend to give stars in context to the type of climbing, and the area.

I agree with Bill: stars should be awarded in the context of the area in which the climb resides. Rickd, that seems to be what you're after, although your post is a little contradictory. In that spirit there ARE 4 star climbs at Carderock (also where I learned to climb). But having climbed some 4 star routes in Eldo this morning, I feel qualified to say that a 4 star climb at Carderock would be lucky to get 1.5 stars at Eldo. And a legitimate 4 star climb at Eldo could easily be 2 or 3 stars at Yosemite. Etc., etc. etc...

Mike Ben wrote:Why don't you just add a 5th star and only people who really know how to rate a route will be allowed to use this fifth star option. Do you smell something? Ah yes! I believe it's sarcasm.

Heh heh . . . or how about a quota system. If you exceed your monthly limit on four-star ratings, you get locked out of MP for a week!

JL

Yet another seemingly egocentric example of the very few worrying about the many. Getting over oneself can be difficult, but not an obstacle that is impossible to overcome! (This post has been rated at 2.75 stars by the majority of people whom don't care and 6.66 stars by those that do. The thread itself falls far below what is normally allowed to be maintained by the site landlords.)

Rick, I notice a lot of runnouts...PG-13's, R, and X rated routes. If that's what tickles your whistle, so be it, but a lot of other people consider a lot of different climbs classics for different reasons. Long runnouts tend to make a much less enjoyable experience for me. Another thing is, people tend to rate routes that they like, while not bothering with ones they didn't. Maybe one thing you should look at is not just the number of stars, but the number of ratings. A high rating count, especially accompanied by a high star rating, tends to point towards a more "classic" route.

One thing that did just occur to me, when they transferred the site from the climbingxxx.com(s) to mp.com, I think all the 3 stars received automatic 4 stars.

Fellas, I'm still tellin ya. What we need here is More Cowbell --bastards took it off Youtube :(

rickd wrote:. I believe those who enter route data should not be so proud of the routes without less merit.

I gotta admit, I absolutely no idea what this means. First time I read it, it was like 4:30 a.m. So I figured it made no sense to me because its 4goddamn30 in the frikkin morning. But now, its meaning still eludes me. I like Tony Bubb's idea about having a multiplier applied to each area. Rate a route 4 stars at a choss pile and the area multiplier drops it down to 2.

The system here is how it should be. Democratic.

rickd wrote:and come on: "Welcome to the Machine" at the stronghold.

Two votes (for “Welcome..”) does not make a statistically stable estimate for a measure of central tendency; you need at least five for a stable mean and up to ca. 18 for a reasonable estimate of the error. Thus, the (nearly) four star vote for this route has no (statistical) meaning.

Mike Lane wrote: ... I like Tony Bubb's idea about having a multiplier applied to each area. Rate a route 4 stars at a choss pile and the area multiplier drops it down to 2. ...

I kinda dig this idea too.

You know, one thing that sticks out to me is that bouldering & sport are their own animal. A classic line in the Tetons vs a classic bouldering problem, say Vedauwoo, vs a classic sport route, etc. - all deserve merit, the're just different to compare using the same star scale.

The whole thing is subjective anyhoo, you can't win for losin.

Mike Lane wrote: I gotta admit, I absolutely no idea what this means. First time I read it, it was like 4:30 a.m. So I figured it made no sense to me because its 4goddamn30 in the frikkin morning. But now, its meaning still eludes me. I like Tony Bubb's idea about having a multiplier applied to each area. Rate a route 4 stars at a choss pile and the area multiplier drops it down to 2. The system here is how it should be. Democratic.

What he meant was: people who enter new routes (espec their own) should be conservative about ratings (stars and probably difficulty too). What seems great because you just did it (or put it up) may not stand up once the new wears off.

My problem with the star system on MP is that we can't give 0 (as in zero) stars...it's either one or a bomb. Zero stars is not the same as a bomb. Zero means you can't really recommend it, but it may be okay for some. A bomb should mean you actively hated the route. It's like a negative star.

David Arthur Sampson wrote: Two votes (for “Welcome..”) does not make a statistically stable estimate for a measure of central tendency; you need at least five for a stable mean and up to ca. 18 for a reasonable estimate of the error. Thus, the (nearly) four star vote for this route has no (statistical) meaning.

Before we get too carried away with Statistics and the central limit theorem, keep two points in mind. First, the routes entered in the MP data base are not a random sample. The sampling bias is toward the routes that get done a lot, i.e. the better quality routes. And second, the routes that people give ratings are not a random sample from the MP data base. People generally prefer to talk about (give ratings to) routes they enjoyed.

This complaint about ratings is the same with pretty much every guide book on the planet. Often, the authors are subjectively grading their experience/effort expended on the route, rather than an objective grade of the route's quality, hence, the rating of the average 5.12 route is going to be disproportionately higher than the average 5.6. If a route makes you feel like the next Layton Kor, it must be better than that trade route open to nearly every other gumby, right? The route isn't necessarily better, but it is an inevitable outcome of the grading/rating system.

Same goes for first ascents: first ascensionists probably often grade things a bit higher because it was their adventure. That said, I think folks should try to rate things relative to other routes at the same area. That better serves the purpose of the site, in my opinion.

Oh, and yeah, we're definately gonna need more cowbell. . . .