Anonymous Coward Route Postings

Question:

Should "Anonymous Cowards" (ACs) be allowed to post routes and beta?
The idea of this seems to run counter to the stated integrity of MP.COM.

After browsing through several "AC" route submissions (371 at last count), I've noted that significant inaccuracies often need to be corrected or commented upon by numerous others (granted, not unique to ACs). Yes, I realize internet dynamics here, complete with all the hazards of public posting, and comments do often alleviate problems. However, as MP.COM becomes a more instrumental "beyond the guidebook" resource, it should encourage all important submissions (routes, beta, etc...) to have legit, varifiable authors.

• (Increasingly, MP.COM is the only guidebook for people. - print and go!..."hope that beta's right, dude"...gulp.)

As such, perhaps Anonymous Coward routes might be reviewed, updated, or re-assigned to people who have reputational stakes in accuracy.

Thoughts?

If it's inaccurate, simply have the verified info to the admin to update it -- or post a comment.

If it's a submission that's accurate, I don't see a problem.

Thanks for bringing this up DaveB. I was actually chatting with my Texas partner about this, this morning. Alot of people even use there real name and still enter routes, with AWFUL descriptions, sometimes right off a guidebook on routes they haven't even touched. If someone enters 12 routes into the database in one day, my interest starts to rise. If they climb 5.9(not that there's anything wrong about that) and then post routes that are 13+ or V12, my interest starts to rise.

I love the chat forum here, but I rely heavily on the route descriptions. Admins can alter words from a bogus description, but we can't just axe the description and give it to someone who might do a way better job of it. I guess it keeps the "Playing God" factor down.

I still like the idea of using your real name as it keeps you honest, and in check when ya' get all feisty.

MP is still the best climbing site going. IMO.

Hank Caylor wrote: MP is still the best climbing site going. IMO.

Dude! Werd up! MP rules and other sites drool!
Josh

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AC's can no longer add routes, so Dave you must be referring to all the old stuff in the database.

Seems to me if someone is knowledgeable about an AC authored route which is brief or inaccurate and wants to "adopt it", they should be allowed to so so. All the admin has to do is change the author and they can edit away.

I've seen some great contributions by AC's and some poor one's by "real name" people. I do think it may be valuable for a distinction of each AC, such as AC100, AC101, AC102 or require some kind of username. This may distinguish each AC and they can still maintain their anonymity if they wish rather than 100 or 200 users with the same "name". If George's comment above is true than this is not an issue anymore.

I was extremely impressed with MP a few weeks ago when I submitted a comment on a route in Eldo that was submitted in Dec 01. I noticed it was a redundant submission submitted a few months after the first submission. Only difference, it used the aka name. I received a thank you email from an admin and he combined the two submission. I don't know how he picked up on this so fast. Is this normal? Great work Leo. This is one of the reason's I think mp.com is the best climbing site going.

If you have not climbed the Route then you have no Business posting it!

Thats my 2 cents! For what its worth...

George Bell wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but AC's can no longer add routes, so Dave you must be referring to all the old stuff in the database. Seems to me if someone is knowledgeable about an AC authored route which is brief or inaccurate and wants to "adopt it", they should be allowed to so so. All the admin has to do is change the author and they can edit away.

That was my understanding. I've accidentally entered routes as the old Anonymous Coward (like 6 years ago), but I tried to make sure that the info was accurate.

Still, this isn't RC.knob, you should climb the route (even in the worst style possible) before posting it.

Michael John Gray wrote:If you have not climbed the Route then you have no Business posting it! Thats my 2 cents! For what its worth...

I agree 100%. Personally, I take it a bit further. If I haven't lead the route I have no business submitting it.

Hank Caylor wrote:. If someone enters 12 routes into the database in one day, my interest starts to rise. .

I actually thought about this the other day as I submitted a ton of boulders that I have done over the past few years. I usually wait until I have time and then just grind it out till I'm done.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed that you should not submit routes that you have not climbed? Probably goes without saying.

Correction, only read the thread to Hank's post, should have read the rest for the answer to my question.

George Bell wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but AC's can no longer add routes, so Dave you must be referring to all the old stuff in the database....

You may be correct, I do not know. (last AC submission appears to be 11-22-07.)

Perhaps more fearless and all-knowing admins could chime in? ;-)

Used to be that "anonymous Coward" was the default login. If you didn't log in., that's what the submissions went under.
That was before we had trolls.

Things changed around the time that "Boss McGillicutty" and "Floyd HoneySuckle" joined the group and things got "funny."

If you think a description is sub-par, you can contact the admin and ask to adopt it, then change it, or submit and alternate comment for them to review and replace- keep the format similar in your comment.

I think I was the 'duplicate' AKA route name submitter that Greg Mentions. Leo contacted me and let me know that the route was there under a different name and asked how I felt about it and my answer was "Well, make sure the beta is good" and the two were combined.

Alwasy works out well and teh admins are always cool about it.

M Morley wrote:...When all the climbingboulder and sister sites were merged into Mountain Project, there was no way to separate out one anonymous comment from another, so it remains as it was....

Got it. Thanks for the history.

In following with the Golden Rule, as MP.COM matures, perhaps some of these older AC route submissions can be adopted/improved by legit authors in an campaign to tidy things up a bit. (maybe already happening...)

Anyway, just a thought.

DaveB wrote: (maybe already happening...)

Indeed, it probably happens every week...

M Morley wrote: Some of the anonymously posted route and area descriptions are great, and probably don't really need adoption. To me, it's not really a question of ridding the database of anonymous entries, but rather in maintaining a high level of quality. As for my comment about the Golden Rule, it is not at all directed at you, Dave, and hope it didn't come across that way. It was just meant as a general observation.

Agreed...and understood. :-)

Michael John Gray wrote:If you have not climbed the Route then you have no Business posting it! Thats my 2 cents! For what its worth...

Sorry if this is a bit of a drift, but I politely disagree with this statement. We have a lot of obscure climbing and new development going on around where I live. There's just not good beta for a lot of it. I post new routes when I get back from a new crag or when I hear of new ascents, mostly so that the info is fresh and my memory hasn't faded. I know that may not be 100% accurate beta/descriptions/etc., but it is often the best (read "only") around. I agree that you shouldn't post something just to see your name in print and you should try to be as accurate as possible. But in my case, at least, I use MP as a reference to myself so that I can remember an area when I go back to it, again, mostly in areas around my hometown that are infrequently visited. Do other people think this is a good idea or not?

Yeah maybe there are cases that might warrent it, although I think that this is rare.. your case seems cool to me.. "also politely"

But if you go and post an Ultra Classic, say the Mithral Dihedral and have never climbed it thats BS.... I would agree with previous posters and say that you should have lead at least half of it if its a long route... I dont think it matters what I say though im just another pion in this crazy place.

Seems cool to me!! It had never occured to me and I would have never have thought of your predicament....

Also, I once entered in some information on the Superstitions that was inacurate and Greg Opland. Hell of a guy. He knows his shit about AZ, and he's the Author of the (now out of print)guide to the Superstitions. He let me know what was up. I was grateful for his correcting me!! We actually got a PDF of his guide, and the picture I was refering too that I took inaccurately described the formations photographed. Thanks to him we climbed the Odyessy in the Sups which was a real treat!!!

Thanks Greg

Tom Rangitsch wrote: I know that may not be 100% accurate beta/descriptions/etc., but it is often the best (read "only") around.

It might be best to add that caveat to your route descriptions. I.e. "This is a new route, but I was up there watching so-and-so climb route X...he/she needed A, B, C gear to get to the anchors..." That way the info is in the database and can be updated easily by the next person who actually does climb it...

yes/no?

Seems this thread was similar:

mountainproject.com/v/discu…

I thought some valid points were raised, but i don't think a solution was implemented.

Tom Rangitsch wrote: Sorry if this is a bit of a drift, but I politely disagree with this statement. We have a lot of obscure climbing and new development going on around where I live. There's just not good beta for a lot of it. I post new routes when I get back from a new crag or when I hear of new ascents, mostly so that the info is fresh and my memory hasn't faded. I know that may not be 100% accurate beta/descriptions/etc., but it is often the best (read "only") around. I agree that you shouldn't post something just to see your name in print and you should try to be as accurate as possible. But in my case, at least, I use MP as a reference to myself so that I can remember an area when I go back to it, again, mostly in areas around my hometown that are infrequently visited. Do other people think this is a good idea or not?

Sorry Tom, but I gotta call BS on this. This is not a sound argument, nor is it accurate. You have posted numerous worthless route descriptions:

Smoke Shapes

Busload of Faith

Moonshine

Last Man Standing

Rodeo Free Europe

Genetic Drifter

The Gathering

Good-Bye Gorsky

Sister Rae

Rain of Gold

All of these routes are listed in readily available guidebooks. Have you done any of these routes? This info is certainly NOT better than nothing, because it prevents someone else from posting the route.

If you want to post second hand rumors, post them as a comment under the appropriate area.

I agree with Mono,

If you haven't climbed it, don't post it.

Brad