MP star system

27% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Jonathan Ward wrote:I think MP should go (back?) to a three star system. Five stars is way too fine-grained. Most guidebooks don't use that many stars.

x10000.
The bomb and 3 stars. Horrendous choss, meh, good, quit work and go climb it. Half starts for visual convenience.

rob bauer wrote:I only pay attention to MY stars on routes I've done. Any stars says I've done the route and what I thought of it and it shows which routes I haven't done yet on the left hand column. Others' stars are a quick guide to what others thought of it. If I'm curious, I might look at the details to see if some of the other names I may recognize tend to agree on other routes I've done to get a relative scale. It's a reasonably handy system as it stands.

then this discussion does not apply to you since you don't use the consensus star system. i'm curious as to why you are participating in this thread.

Crag Dweller wrote:people can't even come to agreement on whether a route is a 5.10 or 5.11 and you're asking for an algorithm that breaks the star ratings down to single decimal point increments?! methinks the precision of your rating sensitivity is far too advanced for the 99.9997% of the users on this site, myself included.

it's already broken up into single decimal increments. my suggestion is just to smooth out those increments from

3.0
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9
4.0

to something that distributes the weight evenly over the entire scale.

so far the primary reason for disagreement on this subject appears to be, "why are you bothering to discuss something that i think is so unimportant?"

is this really what MP has come to in the past few years? seriously? this seems to be a recurrent theme.

Jon-

I think your suggestion makes sense. It basically gives half stars more meaning, which is what you are getting at.

I'd recommend re-starting your thread in the "discuss mountain project" forum instead of "general climbing". You'll get more feedback from those that are interested in improving the site itself, and more importantly that can actually do something about it (they frequent that forum often).

Jon Ruland wrote: it's already broken up into single decimal increments. my suggestion is just to smooth out those increments from 3.0 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 4.0 to something that distributes the weight evenly over the entire scale.

i understood what you were saying. but, it's not currently broken up into single decimal increments. it's, effectively, broken up into 5 decimal increments. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0. anything above 3.0 or below 4.0 is rounded to 3.5.

and, fwiw, i wasn't saying it's unimportant. i just don't think that most people are really that picky about the routes they choose to climb.

i'd bet that most people will get on anything that has more than 1 star if they're in the area and haven't climbed it before. they may pick a 3 star route over a 2 star route. but, are people really going to pick a 3.5 star route a 3 star route? i know i wouldn't.

Spri wrote:Jon- I think your suggestion makes sense. It basically gives half stars more meaning, which is what you are getting at. I'd recommend re-starting your thread in the "discuss mountain project" forum instead of "general climbing". You'll get more feedback from those that are interested in improving the site itself, and more importantly that can actually do something about it (they frequent that forum often).

Oh, I've been following this with much amusement. I like the original idea and will probably implement it soon. Maybe when I get back from Eldo tomorrow...

Nick Wilder wrote: Oh, I've been following this with much amusement. I like the original idea and will probably implement it soon. Maybe when I get back from Eldo tomorrow...

http://mountainproject.com/v/in-eldostfu/107233847

Glad to hear it Nick. I started another thread like this one but didn't get much traction. Nice work on getting some attention, Jon. To all the haters out there, clearly a lot of folks use MP for information about routes when they're not climbing (like when they're at work, and can't climb gasp!). Whether you like it or not, people do use the consensus-based star ratings despite the obvious shortcomings. Jon has recommended a simple way to address one shortcoming, thus improving the site. A few more improvements or ideas like this, and the stars might hold more meaning...

Colin Parker wrote:Glad to hear it Nick. I started another thread like this one but didn't get much traction. Nice work on getting some attention, Jon. To all the haters out there, clearly a lot of folks use MP for information about routes when they're not climbing (like when they're at work, and can't climb gasp!). Whether you like it or not, people do use the consensus-based star ratings despite the obvious shortcomings. Jon has recommended a simple way to address one shortcoming, thus improving the site. A few more improvements or ideas like this, and the stars might hold more meaning...

i saw that thread after someone linked it. it was reassuring to see other people were having similar thoughts.

you also touched on something that is kind of baffling to me since it happens so often among supposedly mature adults. many a thread (on MP or elsewhere) goes like this: OP suggests an improvement for something and opens the discussion to tweak the idea; lots of people immediately tell him to quit "complaining" and stop "wasting time". it's just an idea for improvement. there's no complaint, and those involved can take it or leave it. why all the backlash?

Crag Dweller wrote: i understood what you were saying. but, it's not currently broken up into single decimal increments. it's, effectively, broken up into 5 decimal increments. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0. anything above 3.0 or below 4.0 is rounded to 3.5. and, fwiw, i wasn't saying it's unimportant. i just don't think that most people are really that picky about the routes they choose to climb. i'd bet that most people will get on anything that has more than 1 star if they're in the area and haven't climbed it before. they may pick a 3 star route over a 2 star route. but, are people really going to pick a 3.5 star route a 3 star route? i know i wouldn't.

true, many people do just go to an area and get on things. but it does help when browsing routes to determine where they want to spend their time, especially for long multipitch routes that you might spend a whole day on.

Nick Wilder wrote: Oh, I've been following this with much amusement. I like the original idea and will probably implement it soon. Maybe when I get back from Eldo tomorrow...

bamf

Jon's proposal improves the entropy of "number of stars" form about 2 bits to about 3, which is close to the theoretical maximum of log2(9) for a 9-valued random variable. Since it has no apparent downside, I'm glad Nick has agreed to implement it.

Done. And here's a chart so you can compare the old system to the new one: mountainproject.com/starCom…

Much better - thanks to both Jon and Colin for the proposal.

Nick Wilder wrote:Done. And here's a chart so you can compare the old system to the new one: mountainproject.com/starCom… Much better - thanks to both Jon and Colin for the proposal.

oh that is PERTY right there. thanks very much nick for being so responsive to the people who use the site.

Hallelujah!

Thanks for providing me with more bombs to check out.

Seriously, I do think this is an improvement, nice work all.

I agree. Small but worthwhile improvement. Thanks for pushing and thanks to nick for the implementation.

I guess it washes out some people star bombing the route? I'd be more interested in equanamity concerning the grade ratings. I've noticed the grade originally posted holds more sway over all those subsequent.