PSA: You did not get an FA!

Adam Burch wrote:

Well that was fast - it was removed (staff?)

Was a V-easy first ascent on this boulder below, likely the downclimb from the description.  Pretty bummed, Joann put it up and I'm always excited to get on her rigs - she has a similar climbing style to me.

^^^ To all the people commenting "Too many V0-V3... not that tall... no one cares about FA". Just because you don't care, you look down on bouldering, you only consider hard boulders legit... whatever the motivation - doesn't mean everyone does. You can Ignore, use filters, downrate if you tried and they're awful. Not sure what the motivation is too censor beyond that. 

If they get taken down (like this one) without any consideration by an admin, or like Deforestation sit (V12) was taken down, or like Avery Power Pull (V8-9) was taken down (two pretty legit extension boulder problems that I've personally tried (and rumor is that Sharma had tried Caunt PP sit - Avery PP - back in the day) at a crag mentioned earlier in the thread... then it's just hard to find them unless you read through descriptions and comments (of climbs rated 3+ grades lower). Admins removing routes or other details like FA claims, unless they are truly awful and thoughtless, is simply a terrible policy... obviously people care - several are commenting on this obscure thread.

Todd Berlier wrote:

hmmm...is it censorship to remove something from a open source database because it offends the admins sense of what mp should be or represent?

Oh, goody, another censorship discussion. 

Todd Berlier wrote:

im just asking questions.

Cool! We’re just two guys doing our thing! 

Adam Burch wrote:

just 2 guys with their shirts off.  No big deal!

I’m rigid!

Scott Harriswrote:

^^^ To all the people commenting "Too many V0-V3... not that tall... no one cares about FA". Just because you don't care, you look down on bouldering, you only consider hard boulders legit... whatever the motivation - doesn't mean everyone does. You can Ignore, use filters, downrate if you tried and they're awful. Not sure what the motivation is too censor beyond that. 

If they get taken down (like this one) without any consideration by an admin, or like Deforestation sit (V12) was taken down, or like Avery Power Pull (V8-9) was taken down (two pretty legit extension boulder problems that I've personally tried (and rumor is that Sharma had tried Caunt PP sit - Avery PP - back in the day) at a crag mentioned earlier in the thread... then it's just hard to find them unless you read through descriptions and comments (of climbs rated 3+ grades lower). Admins removing routes or other details like FA claims, unless they are truly awful and thoughtless, is simply a terrible policy... obviously people care - several are commenting on this obscure thread.

It sounds like you want a volunteer admin job!

M Mwrote:

It sounds like you want a volunteer admin job!

Willing to help for sure. I'll offer. I'm not clear on how much the admins are just doing what they're guided to do though. Seems like admins have super broad coverage areas as well, so I'm sure it's hard to figure out what is legit or not if you're an admin who's into mountaineering and new sit-start boulder pops up, or vice versa. 

Scott Harriswrote:

Willing to help for sure. I'll offer. I'm not clear on how much the admins are just doing what they're guided to do though. Seems like admins have super broad coverage areas as well, so I'm sure it's hard to figure out what is legit or not if you're an admin who's into mountaineering and new sit-start boulder pops up, or vice versa. 

I used to help with the site and let me tell you there is a bunch of whiners who want to see pages reorganized and descriptions changed all the time. Luckily for me bouldering FAs were not the rage, seeing all the new additions to the data base(that need approval) now with all the new V0s I personally wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

On another proj site I once tried to enter a local hike( in a local park on google)and the admin was a serious stickler who rejected my submission until I could prove it was not on private land. I stopped adding to the database.

I like any and all submissions but the way the states are organized there is no way to separate new boulder problems from new routes unless you are on a specific area page. I say let the peeps claim FAs on every chunk of rock they ever touch, just dont clog up the actual technical climbing routes with 8' pebbles.

M Mwrote:

I used to help with the site and let me tell you there is a bunch of whiners who want to see pages reorganized and descriptions changed all the time. Luckily for me bouldering FAs were not the rage, seeing all the new additions to the data base(that need approval) now with all the new V0s I personally wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

On another proj site I once tried to enter a local hike( in a local park on google)and the admin was a serious stickler who rejected my submission until I could prove it was not on private land. I stopped adding to the database.

I like any and all submissions but the way the states are organized there is no way to separate new boulder problems from new routes unless you are on a specific area page. I say let the peeps claim FAs on every chunk of rock they ever touch, just dont clog up the actual technical climbing routes with 8' pebbles.

I honestly don't understand what you mean by clog. I don't think people look on mountain project see some amazing feature then get lost in the woods because there is an 8 foot lowball in the database. Also if your just looking for routes mountain project has this function: 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I honestly don't understand what you mean by clog. I don't think people look on mountain project see some amazing feature then get lost in the woods because there is an 8 foot lowball in the database. Also if your just looking for routes mountain project has this function: 

Some folks check the whats new feature for their state. Just sayin